11 Comments

• Letterman 15th Aug '07 - 9:10am

  I’m not entirely sure why the Lib Dems are so opposed to a referendum on Independence. Yes it would be a bit expensive but Democracy is expensive.

  More importantly, who on earth came up with the slogan ‘we think Scotland has a bright future’???

  No wonder we lost the last election if we can’t even express a definitive view on Scotland’s future!!

  ‘We think so…but you know…we’re not quite sure really.’ 😛

• Michael 15th Aug '07 - 10:51am

  Indeed. One would think, that Liberal Democrats would accept the democratic will of the majority, even if they disagreed, but in this case Liberal Democrats for some reason don’t even allow the majority to express it’s will, whatever it is.

  If the referendum would lead to the independence of Scotland, so be it, at least the referendum wouldn’t have been useless, because it would have given the majority of the Scottish people an opportunity to express its will to leave the union.

  And if the referendum would lead to Scotland staying in the Union, then again he referendum wouldn’t have been useless, because it would have given the majority of the Scottish people an opportunity to express its will. And at least then SNP would have to shut up.

• James Graham 15th Aug '07 - 11:42am

  I’m all for citizen-led initiatives leading to a referendum, indeed I’ve advocated this in depth on this very site. But the arguments that the Scottish Lib Dems should support a referendum on independence on the grounds of democracy is just insane.

  The Scottish have spoken: two thirds of them voted against independence in the Scottish Parliament elections. By coincidence, two thirds consistently also reject independence in opinion polls. The Lib Dems themselves oppose independence. Given these three facts, inconvenient for some, it would be profoundly undemocratic to back the holding of a referendum.

  Why stop with independence? There a lots of things Scotland could be having referendums on right now, some of them might actually be popular. Why back a referendum on independence and not the death penalty for instance?

  The Scottish Lib Dems have a considered view on independence and should be allowed to advocate their considered view. The White Paper published yesterday holds open the possibility of devolving further powers to the Scottish Parliament. By rejecting independence, the Lib Dems increase the likelihood of this being a ‘compromise’. By blithely going along with an independence referendum, all Scotland is likely to get is a resounding no vote. It makes me laugh to think that some people actually consider that to be progress.

  Nicol: hold your ground and don’t listen to the bampots.

• Letterman 15th Aug '07 - 12:12pm

  Except that the Governing party aren’t advocating a referendum on the death penalty but they are on independence.

  Having said that it doesn’t bother me either way. My substansive point was more a bemusement at the rather wet slogan on the Scottish Lib Dem website.

• Michael 15th Aug '07 - 12:43pm

  James Graham: “The Scottish Lib Dems have a considered view on independence and should be allowed to advocate their considered view.”

  Of course they could advocate their considered view also in a referendum, and campaign for the Union. I’m sure that you do undestand that opposing the Scottish independence is not the same thing as opposing a referendum on Scottish independence. (Same applies to the death penalty, actually. I for one think it would be better that Scotland would stay in the Union, and I oppose death penalty, but I don’t oppose referendums on either isssues.)

  But you made a good point. Scottish Lib Dems could suggest, that given number of citizens could initiate a referendum in Scotland (on independence, or on death penalty, for instance). If SNP can’t find a majority in the Scottish Parliament to support a referendum on independence, it should accept citizen-led initiatives, so that it could collect the needed signatures from the citizens and then get a referendum. Both Lib Dems and SNP would win; Lib Dems could increase democracy, and SNP could get its referendum.

• Jeremy Sanders 15th Aug '07 - 12:53pm

  This is all really rather disingenuous by the SNP. As James Graham says, why does the SNP believe that Scots have a right to a referendum on independence, but not anything else? The answer, of course, is that the SNP support it, but they know perfectly well that the Scottish Parliament would not. It’s rather like UKIP campaigning for a referendum on withdrawal from the EU. The idea that the situation is different because the SNP are the current government is a bit of a red herring. They are a minority government which the Scottish Parliament could remove at any time, and whom a large majority of voters voted against. This does not them any sort of right to try to push through something that the majority of MSPs were specifically elected on a platform of opposing.

  The other thing to be remembered is that one of the most important points made by all of the SNPs opponents is that independence is simply a distraction from the real issues facing Scotland. By considering supporting a referendum we would effectively be saying “actually, the SNP are right, whether you support it or not, the question of independence is the major political issue facing Scotland”, which is of course exactly what the SNP want.

• James Graham 15th Aug '07 - 12:53pm

  #4: “Except that the Governing party aren’t advocating a referendum on the death penalty but they are on independence.”

  What does that have to do with the price of fish? Governments without majorities have to seek compromise and consensus. Parliaments – not Governments – should be sovereign. The SNP have just 1 MSP more than Labour and got just 2% more votes. It is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Scottish public.

  #5: I would indeed like to see them do this. But convincing ANY party in the UK to adopt I&R as policy is a big ask and even though I’m an advocate of the system I wouldn’t blame the Scottish Lib Dems for being cautious about this.

• MatGB 15th Aug '07 - 2:45pm

  I’m normally opposed to referenda (one of the issues I regularly disagree with James on), but do think they should be held on *constitutional* issues (ie those affecting how we’re governed only).

  And I think we’re missing a trick in Scotland, and should back a referendum–because we know the result already, as James says, and it would neuter the issue for a generation or so.

  But, y’know, displaced Devonshire lad living in London and planning to move to Yorkshire–not my problem nor my decision.

• James Graham 15th Aug '07 - 3:27pm

  I repeat what I said above: capitulating now on a referendum for independence weakens our hand in pushing for further devolution. A resounding ‘no’ vote for independence will be used by opponents of further devolution as an excuse to back the status quo.

• MatGB 15th Aug '07 - 4:03pm

  How about a preferendum; status quo, abolish, more devolution, independence?

  Number by preference–I think we’d get more devolution as a resounding yes result if we did that, and Independence would be kicked backwater.

• James Graham 15th Aug '07 - 5:33pm

  Preferendum, schmeferendum. At some point in a debate about referendums, someone always trots this one out.

  The problem is, you end up with a recipe for an incredibly confused debate. Who decides what options get shortlisted and how? Why would you even need one if one option appears to have a clear consensus (which I’m willing to bet giving greater powers to the Scottish Parliament along the lines of the Steel Commission will actually have).

  No. What Scotland needs is a citizen-led Scottish Constitutional Convention, with its findings put to the people in the form of a simple, one question referendum. The White Paper leaves it open how the ‘national conversation’ should take place, and this is along the lines of what the Scottish Lib Dems are calling for (the party line doesn’t appears to imply an SCC along the lines of the one held in the 90s, which in my view hands too much influence to the great and the good, but it doesn’t actually say this).