|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scotland post-vote
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
At present, to call another referendum the Scottish Government needs to convince Westminster to pass an appropriate Act. Which is going to need a very good reason presented to the House, which has to include strong evidence that circumstances since the recent referendum have changed significantly such that a Yes result is more likely. That is going to prevent frequent referenda returning a "no" result.
If there is a future referendum that leads to independence then the Scottish Government can call as many referenda as it likes. But, there would need to be strong public opinion that independence was a serious mistake reflected in MSPs being elected who want a "back in" referendum. Which, again will be a process that's going to prevent frequent referenda.
Of course, a "back in" vote would result in needing to convince the rUK to let Scotland back, which isn't a certainty. But, that's a hypothetical that's not on the horizon at all (for a start there needs to be another referendum before Scotland has another chance at independence).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Tubbs wrote:
The internal argument probably goes sometbing like this:
Politicans that do things that I approve of = Properly Scottish.
Politicans that do stuff that I disapprove of = Not properly Scottish. Corrupted by the Westminister machine.
I haven't heard that myself. I have heard people criticize a Scot like Gordon Brown for propping up the union; and I was just making that point, since some people seem to be saying that it's English politicians who are getting flak. They probably are, but so are the Scottish ones who defended the union.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Tubbs wrote:
The internal argument probably goes sometbing like this:
Politicans that do things that I approve of = Properly Scottish.
Politicans that do stuff that I disapprove of = Not properly Scottish. Corrupted by the Westminister machine.
I haven't heard that myself. I have heard people criticize a Scot like Gordon Brown for propping up the union; and I was just making that point, since some people seem to be saying that it's English politicians who are getting flak. They probably are, but so are the Scottish ones who defended the union.
Possibly not in the same way. English politicans are going to get flack in Scotland for not delivering on their promises. But they will get flack for that here as well!
The criticisms of people like Brown seems to be based on the assumption seems to be that any good / proper Scottish person would want independence and wouldn't be involving themselves with the pro-union camp.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, even that's not strictly true. Someone like Ruth Davidson defended the Union but is not really taking a lot of flak at the moment.
The politicians who are getting flak are those who sat in London apparently disinterested in the referendum until a Yes vote seemed a definitely possibility and all of the sudden were all over the place in Scotland promising all sorts of things they may not be able to deliver. Or, someone like Gordon Brown who has been all but silent and not gracing Westminster with his presence recently (well, except when it comes to radium particles at Dalgety Bay) who suddenly pop out of their peaceful semi-retirement.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
There's a lot of wishful thinking going on, on the unionist side. But say it out loud: almost half of the voting population of one of the constituent nations of the UK, does not want to be in the UK.
If you think that is going to go away overnight, you are just telling yourself a nice story.
Equally, anyone who thinks we'll have independence in the very short term is also dreaming.
But still: the momentum is towards independence, not the other way around.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
There's a lot of wishful thinking going on, on the unionist side. But say it out loud: almost half of the voting population of one of the constituent nations of the UK, does not want to be in the UK.
If you think that is going to go away overnight, you are just telling yourself a nice story.
Equally, anyone who thinks we'll have independence in the very short term is also dreaming.
But still: the momentum is towards independence, not the other way around.
I was thinking that also. The yes campaign had elan and forward movement; the no campaign to me seemed jaded and lacklustre.
I know that there are obvious reasons for that, since change is often exciting, but then change is sometimes inevitable.
I would guess that most independence movements eventually win, although not all obviously. But if you look round the N. Atlantic area - America, Iceland, Ireland, Norway - all have become independent.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Peppone quote:
But still: the momentum is towards independence, not the other way around.
How can you be so sure?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
Independence support grew steadily throughout the build up to the referendum. It's higher now than it has ever been, and people expressed it in their votes. 45% of people - almost half - want out of the UK.
Almost half. And that's not been a steady thing over the years - it grew over the last 2 years.
That is what I mean by momentum. If you live in Scotland, try this: as you walk down the street, make yourself remember that almost 1 in every 2 people you meet does not want to be part of the UK.
(You could say, sure, but slightly more than 1 in 2 people DO want to be British; and I'm saying that number has been decreasing steadily. So far, it's not the other way around.)
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Enoch, I’m surprised you link the ’15 and ’45 to Scottish nationalism rather than a dynastic struggle shaped by the course of the reformation in the British Isles. Surely, the reason why the rebellions were raised in northern Scotland was because it was remote from the centre of military power in the lowlands and England and an area of opposition to a religio-political settlement that had established a presbyterian and Calvinistic hegemony in Scotland that had marginalised and oppressed Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. It was an odd nationalist movement, was it not, that found itself in Derby! The battle of Culloden was fought between combatants whose fault lines were hardly ethnic. It is notable that Scottish nationalism has not looked to the Jacobites for its heroes, but an earlier generation: Wallace and Robert de Bruis.
Kwesi, once again that quite simply is wrong. Both times, the Jacobites started in Scotland because the Stuarts were originally a Scottish dynasty. If they were going to get anywhere, that was where they had to start and where their momentum was going to come from, particularly in the aftermath of Darien and the Act of Union.
Derby just happens to be where the rebel army had got to in the '45 when it decided to turn back. As a place, it has as much ideological bearing on this as Bosworth in 1485. If it had gone down the east side of the country, it might have been Selby, Lincoln or Grantham. It was also clear that by then that a lot of the Scots were doing no more than wait to see which way it turned out and there was not going to be a mass English rising in favour of the Stuarts.
To attempt to argue otherwise from abroad would be on a par with my seeking to maintain that because some of the ideology was framed in terms of states' rights, the American Civil War was not about slavery.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Cross-referring to another thread, is the argument above that that none of the 45% only decided in the booth when they got to the polling station and all are 100% truly committed to Scottish independence, but at least 10% of the 55% are half-hearted, chicken-livered unionist running-dogs, a variant of the 'no true Scotsman' argument? It's certainly no more convincing.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Independence support grew steadily throughout the build up to the referendum. It's higher now than it has ever been, and people expressed it in their votes. 45% of people - almost half - want out of the UK.
Almost half.
Your first paragraph seems (assuming some accuracy in opinion polls) to have been correct until voters were confronted with the need to decide just how they would cast their ballot. From the neck-and-neck figures quoted a couple of days before, there was then a considerable dropping off of the vote.
45% is a fair way from "almost half" in an election. 55% is very substantially more in electoral terms than half.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Cross-referring to another thread, is the argument above that that none of the 45% only decided in the booth when they got to the polling station and all are 100% truly committed to Scottish independence, but at least 10% of the 55% are half-hearted, chicken-livered unionist running-dogs, a variant of the 'no true Scotsman' argument? It's certainly no more convincing.
It wouldn't be an argument I would make.
Earlier I made reference to the opinion polls over the course of the last few years consistently showing 45% for the no side until relatively late in the campaign. Those same polls showed around 30% 'yes' support over the same period, climbing steadily to around 50% during the campaign itself.
So, my conclusion is that the 30-35% of people in Scotland who were already saying they would vote 'yes' 18-24 months ago probably are the base constituency who want independence. A fair number of people in Scotland voted 'yes' because they wanted increased devolved powers but devo-max wasn't on the ballot, but whether many of them are in that 30-35% is unclear - there was no significant increase when it was clear what the question would be, but many of us could see long before the actual bill was passed that devo-max wasn't going to be on it.
My gut feeling, without any sort of empirical evidence to support it, is that there's a three way split in Scotland of almost equal numbers of people. About 1/3 are strongly in favour of independence, about 1/3 are strongly in favour of maintaining the Union, and the rest don't really have strong views either way and are balancing pro's and con's for both sides - and when it came to voting the other week more of that group thought the arguments for maintaining the Union were stronger.
I'm fairly sure that simply because a lot of people who'd not really thought about independence much have been thinking and talking over the last couple of months that the third group has shrunk significantly compared to last year, with probably both 'yes' and 'no' gaining committed supporters. I have nothing more than anecdote and people I know, but I would say 'yes' has gained more than 'no'.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
45% is a fair way from "almost half" in an election. 55% is very substantially more in electoral terms than half.
5% is just 5%. It only has meaning in context, and the context is a growth in independence support from about 30 - 35% two years ago, to 45% now. So I hear a lot of people saying, 55% is a landslide! And it might be in another context - a general election, for example.
In an independence referendum, 55% is a problem for the unionist side. It's 'only 55%'. Only 55% wanted to maintain the massively entrenched and well understood status quo. 45% were prepared to take the enormous risk of independence.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
From a country where there have been quite a few referendums, including one in my State for carving off a portion to form a new state, the margin is a substantial one.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
I can't see how that's meaningful. The context is not comparable.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From a country where there have been quite a few referendums, including one in my State for carving off a portion to form a new state, the margin is a substantial one.
Did those campaigning on the 'status quo' side of the referendum move the goalposts a few days before the vote?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From a country where there have been quite a few referendums, including one in my State for carving off a portion to form a new state, the margin is a substantial one.
Did those campaigning on the 'status quo' side of the referendum move the goalposts a few days before the vote?
In the new state referendum yes, much as in Scotland, a few home truths were pointed out in the last stages - rather than saying that any independent Scotland would have to find the money to pay all the social security bill, the voters were told that it was they who would have to fund the deficit in running the railway system in their area, and so forth. In the national referendums, no.
As to Peppone, the context was clearly different. Here, with a couple of exceptions the results of the referendums, whether won or lost, were pretty quickly accepted and life continued; there was no rush to cuddle up to the losers. There were some major earthquakes after the conscription referendum in WW I, the epicentre being the RC Archbishop of Melbourne. Rumblings along the lines of "we wuz robbed" went on for 3 or 4 weeks after the loss of the republic referendum. Most of us knew that the result had been rigged in the way that the question was framed. In the new state referendum in 1967, the farmers realised that there were cows to be milked and got on with it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
Reporting in from what is arguably the referendum capital of the world (tomorrow we vote i.a. on the highly emotional issue of whether VAT should be the same for selling food from a roadside stall as it is from a restaurant -, also know as "Bratwurst Diskriminierung" - *sigh*), we have plenty of experience to go on.
Anything above 60% - 40% is normally described as "clear", anything below 55 - 45 as "close". If it is a "close" for a progressive idea (as opposed to a last stand issue for conservatives), you can normally expect a rematch in some form within five years if the result is not very quickly absorbed into parliamentary politics. In such a case, you can find that the balance of opinion can easily shift by 15% within a few years. Obviously, the Swiss political system is radically different from the UK's, but I would hazard that if Westmi/onster doesn't quickly agree to some very substantial transfers of power, the issue of independence will be back with a vengeance before too long.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Anything above 60% - 40% is normally described as "clear", anything below 55 - 45 as "close". If it is a "close" for a progressive idea (as opposed to a last stand issue for conservatives), you can normally expect a rematch in some form within five years if the result is not very quickly absorbed into parliamentary politics. In such a case, you can find that the balance of opinion can easily shift by 15% within a few years. Obviously, the Swiss political system is radically different from the UK's, but I would hazard that if Westmi/onster doesn't quickly agree to some very substantial transfers of power, the issue of independence will be back with a vengeance before too long.
That's how I would see it. I would not have been happy with an independence win of less than 60 - 40. And a 'No' vote of 55 is clearly decisive in the immediate sense, but not the whole story, mostly because of the movement of votes in one direction over the entire campaigning period.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think it could go either way. This could be the high point for independence, or it could be just a stepping stone. The comparison with Quebec may be instructive, though the impression I get there is that it is more about language and culture than about politics there than it is in Scotland.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it could go either way. This could be the high point for independence, or it could be just a stepping stone. The comparison with Quebec may be instructive, though the impression I get there is that it is more about language and culture than about politics there than it is in Scotland.
If the UK gets a Labour government next time around, it'll be interesting to see whether or not that changes things slightly.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
Independence support grew steadily throughout the build up to the referendum. It's higher now than it has ever been, and people expressed it in their votes. 45% of people - almost half - want out of the UK.
Almost half. And that's not been a steady thing over the years - it grew over the last 2 years.
It's not been a steady thing at all. It has waxed and waned.
Ramdom examples from opinion polls:
July 2012, Yougov: 30%
Apr 2011, Yougov: 28%
Nov 2006, ICM: 52%
UK Polling Report
The polls show less (indeed, pretty low) support for independence where an alternative option is additional devolved powers (ie, tax raising powers). That's perhaps not surprising, and my view is that the Yes campaign recognised this by presenting independence as something which, in reality, wasn't big boy independence at all. What is more interesting is that in the mid 00s, support for independence appears to have been greater than a few years later. Perhaps the decline was due to the scaling back of Iraq involvement and Gordon Brown's tenure as prime minister. Once the Tories (and a non-Scot) were back in (yes I know the Lib Dems are there too, but their lamentable spinelessness means don't count) the numbers began increasing again.
When I lived in Scotland in the 90s, support for independence was generally around the 30% mark, with some outlier polls (which were upwards). It seemed to me that even back then, Scots didn't identify at all with the UK government. This was before the creation of the Scottish parliament. The fact that support for independence is now higher with the Scottish parliament well established means that I am tempted to agree with Peppone that the long term trend is in favour of independence. However, what ultimately leads me to disagree is the fact that right now was (from a Yes perspective) the optimum time for a referendum: a Tory government full of Old Etonians, austerity, foreign war, and so on. These conditions are unlikely to converge again any time soon, but furthermore, the hard questions about what independence will mean are going to remain. Given that the Yes camp had a long time to come up with answers to these questions, I find it hard to believe they can ever improve them unless the UK becomes an economic basket case, which is unlikely. They will have to rely on Scots deciding that the risks are worthwhile. However, ISTM there is nothing that is likely to change Scots' minds to this position: emotional connection to the UK, for example, is already at a very low ebb (and indeed seemed to be when I lived there).
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I suppose it was no big surprise that in the run up to the coming general election the SNP doesn't get a place in televised debates, with three Greens also excluded from the chance to express their policies in these debates. But Nigel "I have an MP because he defected from the Tories" Farage gets on the podium. Once again, the UK political system sidelines Scotland and Wales.
BBC News.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose it was no big surprise that in the run up to the coming general election the SNP doesn't get a place in televised debates,
These debates seem to be intended to be a face-off between possible Prime Ministers, rather than an attempt to gather as many political viewpoints as possible for a full and frank exchange of views.
If it's a national debate, then clearly the SNP and Plaid Cymru don't get a seat - they don't field candidates nationwide, and whilst it's possible that either party might end up holding the balance of power in Westminster, they're not going to hold any significant power in the next government. You'll note that the Irish parties aren't invited either.
Farage is an interesting question here - whilst a parliamentary party consisting of one ex-Tory puts him firmly in joke party territory, the polls show his party to have 2-3 times the support that the Lib Dems have.
Given that, it's hard to see how you could reasonably exclude Farage without also excluding Clegg. And it's hard to see how you could exclude the junior partner in the sitting coalition government in favour of a Cameron/Miliband head-to-head.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose it was no big surprise that in the run up to the coming general election the SNP doesn't get a place in televised debates, with three Greens also excluded from the chance to express their policies in these debates. But Nigel "I have an MP because he defected from the Tories" Farage gets on the podium. Once again, the UK political system sidelines Scotland and Wales.
BBC News.
I expect the Conservative and Labour leaders gave their OK on the basis that Farage will make a complete arse of himself. It's a hope, but it could backfire, much on the lines of Alf Garnett.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Since she doesn't field candidates outside Scotland, it would strike me as profoundly wrong if the rest of us should have to experience election propaganda from Nicola Sturgeon. After all, even if she were to succeed in impressing me, I could not vote for her or her party.
I am, though, persuaded by the argument that if Noxious Nigel gets a place in the national debate, it is unfair not to give the Greens a voice as well. That seems incontrovertible. It's either both or neither.
As opinion polls have no formal status, they should have no bearing on who gets a place and who doesn't.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since she doesn't field candidates outside Scotland, it would strike me as profoundly wrong if the rest of us should have to experience election propaganda from Nicola Sturgeon. After all, even if she were to succeed in impressing me, I could not vote for her or her party.
I am, though, persuaded by the argument that if Noxious Nigel gets a place in the national debate, it is unfair not to give the Greens a voice as well. That seems incontrovertible. It's either both or neither.
Not necessarily. There's also the issue of how many candidates each party intends to field. UKIP might well field candidates in virtually all constituencies, like the main parties. Will the Greens do the same? If they don't, then for a great many people voting Green will be as impossible as voting SNP.
Also, at the last nation-wide election, this year, UKIP topped the poll with over a quarter of votes. The Greens didn't manage 7%.
Though one might argue that one should look at the last general election, rather than any intervening elections.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Presumably the broadcasts are going to be decided before the closing date for standing, which I think is after Parliament is dissolved. If so, the two most legitimate bases are either the votes in the last general election or the composition of Parliament after the point when there will be no more by-elections
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
At the last general election, the Green Party fielded candidates in fewer than half of the UK's parliamentary constituencies. I'm not sure that qualifies one to participate in a national debate if the other parties present are fielding candidates in nearly all of them.
One of the principles that the Green Party promotes is not wasting resources. Cash is one such, campaigning everywhere would dissipate effort too and maybe the Greens don't want to field candidates who won't be a credit to the party. At least that won't be a problem to UKIP - who could possibly discredit them?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If so, the two most legitimate bases are either the votes in the last general election or the composition of Parliament after the point when there will be no more by-elections
That's a consistent argument. Despite its consistency, I don't think you can use it without looking just the tiniest bit biased towards the Establishment when you give a seat to the Deputy Prime Minister but shut out the man whose recent support has been a factor of three higher.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
At the last general election, the Green Party fielded candidates in fewer than half of the UK's parliamentary constituencies. I'm not sure that qualifies one to participate in a national debate if the other parties present are fielding candidates in nearly all of them.
Actually, just over half the UK constituencies if you include Scottish Greens who contested 20 seats and NI Greens who contested 4. Though it doesn't really affect your argument that UKIP contested more seats in 2010, and you'll probably want to add in that they retained their deposit for a larger proportion of seats they contested than the Greens.
Of course, in terms of electoral success the Greens manages one MP out of 330 contested seats and UKIP none out of 558. Whereas SNP managed 6 out of 59, an order of magnitude more successful than the Greens - the same success rate as the LibDems (57 from 631).
I'm not sure where the numbers take us, but there they are.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
It looks like sour grapes to me. She has been forced out, and so she has engaged in a spot of patriotic rhetoric. Either her party is indeed a branch of a UK-wide party (in which case she has nothing to complain about) or it isn't, in which case the act she complains of is ineffective to achieve its purpose.
The problem with remarks like hers is that they contribute to the narrative that it is inevitable, normal, even natural that England and Scotland should drift apart, and that it is impossible, unnatural even, to try to reverse the process. It makes it impossible for any Scottish politician to try and buck the trend, because they will inevitably be accused of being unpatriotic. And it is impossible for anyone south of the border to to do because they will inevitably get lampooned, as was the case during the referendum.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
From what I've seen reported, she doesn't appear to have been forced out. Although, she does appear to have become exasperated with not being able to do what she sees as her job as a result of instructions she's been receiving from the UK Labour Party head office. It comes down to an irreconcilable difference in opinion on the nature of the Labour Party in Scotland. Is it just a "branch office" of the wider UK Party, or does it have some independent existance? Johann Lamont is clearly of the view that it has an independent existence, but that that independence is being countered from the London head office.
Of course, the local party has always had some form of independence from the national party. The local party will be primarily responsible for selecting candidates; they will make decisions on how to campaign locally taking into acocunt local concerns and issues, while still being consistent with the national party. Devolution gave Scotland an extra layer of government, and the Labour Party decided to also go for an extra layer of structure to reflect that with a Scottish Labour Party sitting between constituency party offices and Londone head office. The Labour Government devolved political power from Westminster to Holyrood, it appears that Johann Lamont considers that there hadn't been a corresponding devolution from UK Labour Head Office in London to the Scottish Labour Party.
It's an internal Labour Party issue, but at the same time it is reflective of the growing gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Scottish Labour, and the other parties for that matter, need to live within the realities of Scotland - and that includes the fact that the Scottish electorate are very heavily in favour of devolved powers. There's nothing stopping a Scottish politician campaigning in favour of the Union, many of them did at the end of the summer, but when it comes to standing for election to Westminster, Brussels, Holyrood or the local council such a stand may make them unelectable. Politicians, those good at getting elected at any rate, know where the votes are.
I think Johann Lamont knows what she would need to do to get the maximum number of Labour MPs elected in Scotland in May, and that is to focus on Scottish issues and concerns and acknowledge the Scottish desire for devolution. But, that she's frustrated by messages from head office in London. The General Election will be an interesting time in Scotland. I think Labour are going to need to convince a lot of people to vote for them, whereas previously they could rely on a large vote without needing to do much work to secure it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It seems to me that this is largely a problem not with devolution but with the way the Labour Party runs its affairs. For entirely understandable and recent historical reasons, the centre subjects the locals to very rigid controls.
The person who was elected as our first elected mayor did not run on a party ticket. He invited all the parties to join his cabinet but Labour head office in London - so we all gather - told the local party not to do so, and 'twas instantly obeyed'. To public consumption, this looked as though they were in a huff because their candidate did not win the election.
I suspect the centre treats the Scottish Labour Party like any other constituency one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
previously they could rely on a large vote without needing to do much work to secure it.
I think this is the crux of Labour's current problems in Scotland.
It's been obvious for some time that Johann Lamont was on her way out, but I thought she'd hang on and take the hit at the General Election, then let someone else make a fresh start.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
It looks like sour grapes to me. She has been forced out
I don't think she's been forced out either. I would imagine that her colleagues have been begging her to stay. Labour is in crisis; the expectation is that they will lose seats at the General Election. Whoever takes over from her as Scottish Labour leader is unlikely to be able to turn things round quickly, and so the post of Scottish Labour leader is currently a poisoned chalice. Note the speed with which various possible candidates are ruling themselves out of the running.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
She was forced out. It's a classic political stitch-up. The removal of the general secretary of the Scottish parliament left her with the choice of resigning or accepting a humiliating loss of face. There appears to be motive as well: she wanted Milliband to play less of a prominent role in the No campaign than he wanted. Bear in mind also that she was the leader who presided over Labour's humiliation in the last Scottish parliament elections, that she was involved in a shambolic No campaign that resulted in Labour heartlands returning a majority Yes vote (the only parts of Scotland to do so), which (if current opinion polls carry over to a vote at the next GE) will result in Scottish Labour being reduced to a vote share similar to the Scottish Conservatives and a rump of MPs. Comment on her performance as leader has been unkind until recently. Now she is described as "principled", which is political double-speak for "ineffective". I can see why Labour's UK HQ might want her gone even if there is no one obvious to replace her.
The irony is that, constitutionally speaking, Holyrood is just a branch office of Westminster. It has no sovereignty of its own. Its powers derive entirely from Westminster, and they can, as a matter of law, be altered, enlarged, reduced, or removed entirely simply by amending the Scotland Act. It has seldom been mentioned - if at all - that Holyrood had no power to hold a consultative referendum on Scottish independence, still less a binding one. Westminster had to empower it to do so. The referendum result is not binding on Westminster - and would not have been were it a yes. There was no legal obligation on Westminster to allow the referendum, and there is no obligation on it to hold another one, regardless of political developments - on which point I note that Nicola Sturgeon is engaging in some shit-stirring of her own. She wants Scotland to be able to veto a British exit from the EU should England (and therefore the UK overall) vote in favour of withdrawal. Now, I think the veto would be a great idea as I don't think Britain leaving the EU would be at all good for Britain. But the principal that 50% plus 1 Scottish vote should nullify an overwhelming majority in the other direction in the rest of the UK cannot be considered democratic in any meaningful sense, unless Scottish votes count extra in some kind of manner reminiscent of John Stuart Mill's plurality voting. Now, Nicola Sturgeon is no fool, so one must reluctantly conclude that she is content to stoke up a reaction south of the border as this will play into the hands of Scottish national sentiment and the SNP. By arguing that leaving the EU would be some kind of game changer, she is preparing the pitch for a Canadian-style neverendum. Westminster would, in my opinion, be both legally and morally entitled to refuse this, much as the Spanish appear to be doing.
And speaking of Westminster, we even have Gordon Brown seemingly making the claim that it would be constitutionally illegitimate to exclude Scottish MPs at Westminster from voting on English-only laws. In this confused article he appears to suggest that Scottish MPs must have input on the English budget as the English budget will determine the Scottish budget. I don't think anyone has suggested that. The result of the referendum is that Scotland will remain part of a unitary state with a much larger neighbour. The sheer fact of England's size compared to Scotland is not something that can be constituted away, to coin an ugly phrase. For that matter, it would be a fact that an independent Scotland would have to live with too.
Much to chew upon, but as you can probably tell I'm finding the taste quite nasty.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The irony is that, constitutionally speaking, Holyrood is just a branch office of Westminster. It has no sovereignty of its own. Its powers derive entirely from Westminster, and they can, as a matter of law, be altered, enlarged, reduced, or removed entirely simply by amending the Scotland Act. It has seldom been mentioned - if at all - that Holyrood had no power to hold a consultative referendum on Scottish independence, still less a binding one. Westminster had to empower it to do so. The referendum result is not binding on Westminster - and would not have been were it a yes. There was no legal obligation on Westminster to allow the referendum, and there is no obligation on it to hold another one, regardless of political developments
It was a point that was made repeatedly during the referendum campaign by the "yes" campaign (at least, I read it in several places at different times), where that fact was used as an example of Scotland still being under the control of Westminster even after devolution and why devolution had not gone far enough, and indeed towards the end why the proposed additional devolved powers were still nto far enough as Westminster still retained the power to pull them back at any time.
quote:
I note that Nicola Sturgeon is engaging in some shit-stirring of her own. She wants Scotland to be able to veto a British exit from the EU should England (and therefore the UK overall) vote in favour of withdrawal.
Surely the position of First Minister of Scotland (even if she isn't quite there yet) demands that she stand up for the interests of Scotland (at least what she and the SNP consider the best interests of Scotland). An in/out referendum would be interesting given the assurances offered to the people of Scotland that voting 'no' was a vote to stay in the EU, and having those assurances on record does give Nicola Sturgeon a considerable amount of political ammunition to use to keep the pressure on the Westminster government.
Not only is it what her position effectively demands she do, it's a move that's going to be quite welcome by many in the main UK parties. By playing the "we're all equal partners in the UK" card and requiring an 'out' vote in all four nations it gives the government (of whatever party following the General Election) a referendum to appease UKIP while not actually facing a significant risk of leaving the EU, which would be a disaster for everyone in the UK.
For the Tories the ideal result would be a resounding 'stay in' vote from England, because it would totally pull UKIPs only real policy out from underneath them. It won't rescue them from a rather unpleasant general election in May, but will prevent that from turning into a long term problem for them. Labour would probably prefer a vote to stay in, but a close one so UKIP can continue to pull votes from the Tories.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
