Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Blow for Nationalists as Lib Dem deputy rules out deal with 'separatist party'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 January 2007
THE Liberal Democrats have delivered a rebuff to the SNP and its attempts to persuade them into a coalition after this year's Holyrood elections.
Tavish Scott, the Scottish Lib Dem deputy leader, has ruled out the possibility of a deal with the Nationalists, insisting that if he had wanted to advance the cause of a "separatist party", he would have joined the SNP rather than the Lib Dems, and
he reiterated his opposition to a referendum on the issue of Scottish independence.

The move will be seen as confirming that his party is committed to another four years of coalition with Jack McConnell's Labour, if the two parties win enough seats at Holyrood this May. Previously, the Lib Dems have said that they would speak first to whichever party was the largest in the Scottish Parliament after an election.

An SNP spokesman last night said that the Lib Dems' ruling out of a referendum on independence was anti-democratic. Last week it emerged that the Nationalists were pondering a deal that would leave the possibility open of a coalition if there was no referendum.

Scott said: "We will not allow ourselves to be the back door to Alex Salmond's separate state. We don't believe in independence. If I wanted to put a separatist party into power, I would be a nationalist. I would have joined the SNP. We are not going to bring the machinery of the Scottish government to a halt for an independence referendum."

Until now, the Liberals have had a policy of talking to whichever party gets the most seats in the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood elections. But Scott said that their stance was under review.

The Shetland MSP added that the two main parties, Labour and the SNP, were presenting voters with a false choice, between separation on the one hand and stagnation on the other, and argued that the Lib Dems offered a more positive alternative.

But an SNP spokesman said that the Liberal-Democrats were being anti-democratic.

He said: "The people of Scotland will decide. The duty of politicians such as Tavish Scott is to listen to what the people say and then act on it. Scott calls himself a Liberal Democrat, but he seems to have little regard for democracy. It is clear from opinion polls that more than 80% of Scots want to decide through a referendum whether Scotland should be independent. Scott's opposition to this seems very odd for someone who calls himself a democrat."

With the SNP riding relatively high in the opinion polls, observers have highlighted the possibility of the Nationalists being the largest party at Holyrood after this May's election. The proportional system of the Scottish Parliament means it is unlikely that any party can win an overall majority, meaning that the SNP would have to do a coalition deal with others, just as Labour has done deals with the Lib Dems since 1999.

Meanwhile, the SNP has stepped up its anti-Trident campaign with a leafleting drive across the country.

The Nationalists' leaflet states: "Look at the hole Trident missiles make", highlighting the multi-billion-pound cost of the new system.

SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon, campaigning in Glasgow, said: "Like the people of Scotland, we are far more interested in investing in schools, hospitals and other public services, than wasting £25bn on weapons of mass destruction."

Local community leaders, including Dumbarton Labour MSP Jackie Baillie, say that the jobs from the base are vital to the area. She claims that 7,000 people work directly at the base, with another 4,000 jobs dependent on it locally.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Steve,

Bo'ness 21/01/2007 00:35:54

So the Lib Dems want to ditch democracy and shore up a hated Labour executive against the wishes of the electorate. They are beneath contempt, and they will pay dearly for it. Self interest before democracy.

2

GW,

Scotland 21/01/2007 00:57:16

Perhaps we should all refer to the Lib Dems as the Lib Undems (Liberal Undemocrats) to remind people that what they are saying is that they are against giving people the opportunity of a democratic vote on Independence.

Shame on them!

3

Gnasher,

21/01/2007 00:57:58

If the SNP want to be in government all they need to do is win the majority of seats or combine with other parties willing to work with them to give them the possibility of getting legislation through. Same rules for everyone.

SNP spokesporrans are griping because other parties likely to win seats don't want to do business with the SNP. Does the SNP think that other parties with seats have some duty to work alongside the nats with a minority?

Well of course they think that.

4

Bill, Dunblane,

21/01/2007 01:03:11

1 - Steve - I fear you have far too high an opinion of them.

Liberal 'Democrats' refusing a vote because they fear they will lose it?

And Mclod, reporting as he usually does, as instructed 'Blow for Nationalists'?

However, as usual, fib dims will be 'bought and sold' to the highest bidder - in government with what, 14-15% of the vote? Nothing much has changed in 300 years.

I don't think we're quite as stupid as we may have appeared to be in the past.

5

walter,

21/01/2007 01:14:40

I was under the impression that the SNP were going to out number all the other parties and that would be their mandate to hold a referendum.
If the Lib/Dems are a unionist party then the people who vote them in know this which means they are following the wishes of their constituents when they do not vote with the SNP nothing undemocratic about that.
If the other parties have more seats than the SNP then that means the majority of the people don't want a referendum

6

Bill, Dunblane,

21/01/2007 01:15:08

4 - Gnasher

Of course you know that the system of voting was designed exactly to prevent that eventuality.

Were the same system applied to Westminster, neither Thatcher nor Blair, nor ANY government since WW11, would have a simple majority.

7

Scottish Unionist,

21/01/2007 01:15:15

Why should the Lib Dems cohabit with the Nats?!? Some people are assuming that the Nats will be the largest party - there is still three months to go. But what is certain is that the rump of pro-seperation parties will not gain over 50%.

The Nats should come to their senses and adopt a slower gradual approach, and ditch this sacred committment to a referendum (which an ex-SNP MP described as "illegal" in this paper). They need to prove themselves in devolved govt first, push for further powers and then make the case for independence.

Come May, Scots will have the choice of whether they want to opt for seperatism or not. That's democracy. Make your chioce in May.

8

sheena,

on the night shift 21/01/2007 01:18:42

Poor wee lib dems having to decide which of their grannies to boil up for glue. Dad's mum or Mum's mum? Why not toss a coin?

9

Gnasher,

21/01/2007 01:23:55

Bill, Dunblane (7) - are you saying that the voting system for Holyrood is a Vicious Underhand Unionist Plot to deny the Oppressed True Patriotic Scots from securing their Freedom and National Destiny?

Or just a fair and democratic system that means at even tiny parties get a few seats and a voice, and that Governments have to secure a majority?

10

Bill, Dunblane,

21/01/2007 01:40:56

10 - Gnasher - apply the same formula to recent Westminster elections (the figures are all readily available on the net) and come back and tell me that the Iraq war would have had 'our' backing, that Thatcher could have imposed the poll tax. Although your description is somewhat over the top, essentially, yes - it was designed to stop ANY party from having a simple majority.

11

SC,

Dundee 21/01/2007 02:18:42

Well, the libdems are just like any other bunch of socialists. Power - the ability to tell others what to do - is all they seek and they resolutely hold no principles.

What a scandal though - holding one single policy (although admittedly an important one) as the reason why they will not deal with potentially the largest party.

It doesn't look right does it. It looks like the London parties are ganging up on the SNP because they have something to fear because they have something to lose.

Well the Conservatives have nothing to lose! They, or their ideas, will be a bigger force in an independent Scotland as normal politics resumes.

So how about Cameron ditching the 'Unionist', and start campaigning on freedom of choice.

12

Freeman Stand,

Wishaw 21/01/2007 02:35:56

Can't wait to see the fibdems first leatlet on this, headed - "Scottish people too stupid to be given a say on their own future."

Hard to believe that the biggest tarts in Scottish politics wont sell their souls for a ministerial mondeo.

13

Nevyn,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 02:41:33

Tavish Scott should be ashamed of himself - is he really saying that if voters make the SNP the largest party at Holyrood he will simply ignore the vote and put McConnell back in power?

As for the referendum - if Liberal Democrats want a referendum on the Euro, the European Constitution, English Regional Assemblies, etc - then why on earth would they oppose a referendum on Independence. They could opt to oppose Independence or to offer an alternative of enhanced powers but retain the union. If they believe the result would be a NO to Independence then they have nothing to lose - if they belive that a Yes vote is possible then they are standing in the way of a nation's right to self determination - a position which is neither Liberal nor Democratic.

14

John M.,

21/01/2007 03:20:16

In a PR system there is no requirement that the largest party gets to govern. Control is based on whatever coalition of parties can form a combined majority. That isn't ignoring the vote that's the way the system works so that the governing coalition best reflects the wishes of the electorate. If the people of Scotland want a referendum they need to give the SNP and like minded parties an outright majority.

15

Rossmcl,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 03:39:40

There is absolutely nothing new about this 'story'. The LibDem position has been clear on this issue for years: they believe the election itself is the referendum on independence. If a majority of Scots vote for the SNP then Independence will happen. If they don't, it won't. Thats the value of having a single issue party like the SNP. So, those of you who want Independence, stop girning and go out there and campaign for an SNP victory and accept that if you don't get that, then there's no need for a referendum because you will already have lost the argument.
The real question is: if the SNP are so sure that a majority of people will vote for Independence, then why are they worried about having to bargain about it in a minority situation??

16

Calgacus,

21/01/2007 05:09:09

I'm sure that, when all's said and done, the Lib Dems will hook up with whoever can give them a taste of power, and principles be damned. Same as ever!

17

Guga,

Rockall 21/01/2007 06:35:35

The Whigs know that they will never get elected to government in their own right, and they think that the only way they can get a share of the spoils is to support the New Labour numpties.

The Whigs have never had any intention of being democratic. Not only would they attempt to ignore the wishes of the people if the SNP do get a majority of the votes, but this is the same mob of sandal wearing tree huggers that would raise the price of petrol to £20 a litre.

They are yet another unionist party, and should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.

18

CEBR,

21/01/2007 07:59:29

sadly for the English scots will still vote for labour in may!

19

donald,

weegieland 21/01/2007 08:15:35

Lib-Dums numpty speak

20

donald,

weegieland 21/01/2007 08:15:55

Lib-Dums numpty speak

21

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 21/01/2007 08:21:07

An interesting pre-election stance by the LibDems. Given the fast growing support for the SNP and the increased exposure to the Scottish people of the favourable economic conditions for independence, it looks like the LibDems have just shot themselves in the foot by precluding any post election alliance.

Keep it up LibDems...keep telling the Scottish people that they are unable to manage their own affairs and that you will oppose any referendum whereby they can choose the nature of their government! Everytime you broadcast that sentiment you strengthen the position of the SNP and fortunately bring Scottish sovereignty one step closer.

You are only a splinter party that will never have power and who would disappear without proportional representation.

It's time!!!

22

Ian on earth,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 09:29:35

Labour. Liberals and Conservatives have shown they have no concern for what is actually in the best interests for Scotland because they are obssessed with protecting this unequal Union. Guys please try to put this wee country further up your priority list and do what is right.

23

walter,

21/01/2007 09:49:50

Why do people insist that the SNP are the only party that has Scotland's interests at heart.
Every person and party in Scotland has Scotland's interest at heart they just believe that interest lies in different directions.

24

Grant Thoms,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 09:59:25

Walter - if everyone was to follow your logic (#6), then this year's Council's elections would not be fought on STV voting because Labour were clear in their manifesto that they did not support it but as a price for coalition, jettisoned that pledge.

The Lib Dems will do the same as they did with Labour - accept illiberal anti-social behaviour policy as a price for coalition.

If you take the time to research support for referendum you would learn that there are independence supporters in all parties (see Lindsay Paterson's work on Institute of Governance, Edinburgh Uni website).

25

Tom R,

Tom R 21/01/2007 10:05:29

Based on some of the unionist reasoning on this site presumably it follows that if the Lib Dems get about 15% of the vote then 85% of the electorate oppose their view that no referendum should be held on independence.

More seriously, given that 80% of the electorate believe that there should be a referendum on independence ( particularly if the SNP are the largest party) then continuing opposition by the Lib Dems to this will reduce their vote still further-fourth in votes and fourth in seats will be their permanent future (if they are lucky).

26

greenpousse,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 10:31:52

So the Lib Dems were/are in favour of a referendum on joining the European Union, on introducing the Euro, on devgolution for Scotland, on devolution for Wales, on whether Northern Ireland should join Ireland, on the Good Friday Agreement, but are against a referendum on independence. What hypocrites!

27

Royster,

21/01/2007 10:45:56

It's not undemocratic you fools. If you want a referendum you vote SNP.

28

bratachdubh,

21/01/2007 10:58:10

Interesting stance by the Lib Dumbs. Should there be a potential majority vote for the independence-minded parties in May and they refuse to join, are they going to drop the hypocritical "Democrat" tag from their name and amalgamate with Nieu Labour?

Just another British Nationalist Party.

29

Ian G,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 11:01:39

Democrats against a referendum = hypocrites.

How can any true democrat be a member of such a low life bunch of hypocrites?

Then after the election and the SNP take more seats will the democrats do a U-turn?
Hypocrites indeed.

30

Blarney,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 11:07:30

Give us a referendum, that is democracy! The LibDems are shooting themselves in the foot with this anti democratic stance. If they believe the majority of scots don't want Independance then they have nothing to worry about. If on the other hand they believe that the majority of scots do want Independance then they are showing that they do not care about what we want. They are our elected servants/representatives not our dictators. You cannot cherry pick with democracy, we are either in a democracy or not.

31

Derick fae Yell,

21/01/2007 11:41:35

As Tavish(2 mortgages) Scott's owld man is Lord Lieutenant o Shetlandshire, ir you REALLY surprised?

I'm no. I mean 'Tavish'. Says it aa!

Lib Dems: Aye sittin on da fence wi der lugs tae da grunnd on both sides oda fence listenin fur whit wey da wind is blowin afore decidin whit wey ta jimp (but still keepin wan foot in baith camps.
BAH!

32

Scaramouche,

21/01/2007 11:55:13

Don't vote Libdems, Don't vote Tory. Don't vote New Labour.

And once the SNP get in ... ditch this stupid voting system that lets other parties I DIDN'T VOTE FOR get seats in Holyrood!

I have never been a fan of single transferrable vote OR any kind of powershare where opposition parties get in even though they didn't win a seat!

First past the post has always been the mark of winning.

You don't do it with anything else, do you??

If wee Jimmy breaks the tape first in a race, he doesn't expect to share his prize or the winners podium with the 2nd and 3rd, does he?

Same goes for MY vote!!!

33

rab, glasgow,

21/01/2007 11:57:54

Do the fib/dumbs know the meaning of the word "democracy"?
Snake eye,s stephens with slither in with any party that will save his skin.

34

Niall,

Cairnbulg Aberdeenshire 21/01/2007 11:59:36

#36 Derick fae Yell.

Got it in one! Its high time the Fib Dums got rid of their party name. Their behaviour in respect of a referendum reveals their ineffable hypocracy. Liberal? No way! Democratic? Most undemocratic to deny the Scottish people their democratic right to decide the future of the Union.

They should rename their Party "The Undemocratic Power Seekers" (TUPS). As any farmer will tell you, a Tup is a male sheep, stupid, clueless and will follow anybody prepared to feed it and give it an easy life amongst like minded sheep.

35

Denise,

Shetland 21/01/2007 12:00:36

Is this a new headline? NO!
I am sure I've seen it at least a dozen times over the past few months. We all know it's rubbish! The Lib Dems are a bunch of slimeballs who will do ANYTHING to keep themselves in the public eye.
Like repeating the same old headlines again and again. The vast majority of Scots want a referendum. Unionists are obviously running scared.
Roll on May.

36

Jemima,

north of scotland 21/01/2007 12:09:38

typical Lib dem stance. They don't even sit on a fence, they don't have that good a sense of balance, they are more like kids on a see saw. This way that way, this way that way, till one gets too big for his boots and upsets the balance again. This election will prove to be the most interesting in a long time.

37

Callum,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 12:22:32

It is up too the Scottish people if the SNP win then a other party must support referendum. The UK party are worried that the SNP will do very well. It is disappointed that UK party will not support the people of Scotland if we want a referendum.

Take about Keeping Scotland in the Union.

Time SNP

38

Rob me blind,

21/01/2007 12:29:46

I would hope that all parties would be honest enough to tell us who they would get into bed with if they don’t have a majority in the next parliament. It is one question I will be asking local candidates because I certainly wont be voting for anyone who sides with those I wouldn’t vote for.

39

Alec in Chicago,

21/01/2007 12:29:47

Can anyone recommend some good reference works that lay out this question so that a poorly-informed foreigner can get a (relatively unbiased) handle on this topic?

How is governmental power distributed?

Which parliament has which resposibilities?

I precisely which ways do Scots vote on purely English questions and English vote on purely Scottish matters, as I have seen suggested here and elsewhere?

What, exactly, are the boundaries of Scots self-determination? What are the exact limits imposed by the Union?

(Please note: These are serious enquiries, and are not an attempt at some sort of covert argument.)

In the interest of honest disclosure: my personal beliefs:
1. I would love one day to 'return' to my ancestral homeland.
2. Whether or not the Scots 'ought to' vote for independence is for the Scots to decide.

40

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 12:30:19

Why don't we just have the s0dding referendum, and get the whole debate over once and for all!

Every party should support a referendum - if they are so sure of their case, what are they scared of?

41

Tom R,

Tom R 21/01/2007 12:41:55

#29 AM

It is precisely because the election is NOT on the single issue of independence that there should be a referendum on independence.

42

Derick fae Yell,

21/01/2007 12:46:12

45 Alex in Chicago

the wikpedia article on the Scottish Parliament gives a lot of reasonable factual info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

43

Eve,

Scotland 21/01/2007 13:17:33

This is Auld News

The Lib dem have been saying this since at lest October last year.

44

livilion,

livingston 21/01/2007 13:17:46

So it's not only Neil Kinnock that knows how to write long suicide notes.

45

livilion,

livingston 21/01/2007 13:18:25

46. Andy Th
Losing!

46

livilion,

livingston 21/01/2007 13:21:01

I can't wait to hear the reasons they come up with to excuse the Labour and Tory coallition in the next Holyrood Parliament.

Bear in mind that a UK General Election may only be months behind it.

47

Gnasher,

21/01/2007 13:23:10

If the SNP want other parties like the Lib Dems to work with them on their referendum project, maybe they should hold back on the abuse? The SNP sound like a very unpleasant bunch on the basis of this discussion. Who would want to work alongside them if their social and team-working skills are as bad as they seem to be?

48

SC,

Dundee 21/01/2007 13:49:22

We shouldn't worry about the Lib Dems to much. They are a socialist party and are therefore against increasing democracy and choice in the United Kingdom. Socialism requires total control to govern.

The best hope is the Tories. The motives from south of the Border will be driven mainly by party self-interest, although some will recognise the hypocricy of their contrasting postions on Europe and Scotland. Independence is vital for UK, but not Scotland? Yeah, right.

But the Tories north of Border can only be concerned with the national interest - why else be a Tory here! - and therefore can be relied upon to do the right thing, eventually. More and more are realising that it is better for a country, as it is for individuals, to stand on its own two feet.

49

Edward,

21/01/2007 13:49:23

Its not about which parties get into bed with another party after the May elections. The main issue here is about all political parties recognising and accepting the will of the people, regardless of outcome!
The political parties are there to serve the people, not the other way round.
So I find it rich coming from the Liberal DEMOCRATIC Party to state that they would not support a referendum or be for a referendum, even if the people want one, what happened to the democratic values that they are supposed to have?
The LibDems need to wake up and smell the coffee here. There standpoint should be that if the people of Scotland dictate, by means of the ballot box, there wish to support the SNP, being a party that wants to have a referendum on independence, then the LibDems must accept the will of the peoples will and support the desire for referendum, likewise if the people of Scotland do not vote for SNP or give SNP a mandate, then it is clear that the people do not want a referendum, eiether way the LibDems MUST adhere to what the people want and not what they think should happen

50

Alec in Chicago,

21/01/2007 13:54:03

# 48 Derick

Thanks!

51

SC,

Dundee 21/01/2007 13:55:09

Are the London parties saying that they will support a referendum if the SNP end up with 50% of the votes?

How about if the SNP end up the biggest party - y'know, first past the post that they are all so keen on?

52

Eve,

Scotland 21/01/2007 14:09:22

#57. SC: WHO KNOWS,

It would be good if they did.

Can't really be boverd reading about the Lib Dems saying that the won't hane collision goverment with the SNP as I've read about this too many time already.

53

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 21/01/2007 15:33:43

I can well remember when the Labour scare stories told everyone that the Nats were Tories with kilts (The Tartan Tories). How things change. Now "make your mind up" McConnell sides with the Matron of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and wants to keep nuclear subs(and any other nuclear weapons) on the Clyde (read Scotland). But wait a minute, was Oor Jack not against WMD and nuclear power plants last year? Ah but that was before the bosses in Westminster kicked a'se and changed his mind. Now the Lib Dems, sore on their posteriors with sitting on the fence and kissing a'ses to anyone who will keep them in their Mondeos (no taxis for them) now say no to supporting the SNP. For my part that is the best and almost the only positive statement they have made since 1999. What are we left with? A Unionist alliance who have proved in their term of office to make pimples on the rump of a potential award winning Angus thoroughbred. Get rid of those Jack Asses and let Scotland flourish.

54

Dark Blue,

Banchory 21/01/2007 15:46:30

The Lib-dems really are a joke party. Would they really go into coalition with a defeated Labour party.Probably.

55

Eve,

Scotland 21/01/2007 15:54:55

#60. Dark Blue: AYE The tories, the Labour party and the lib dems are alll holding hand on the 3rd of May, hoping too stop the SNP from gettting in too power (I hope the "Unionist" fail)

56

What's Up Jock?,

21/01/2007 16:04:30

Good on ya Tavish ...IT'S NOT TIME !!

#46 ..if the answer to a referendum is NO the nats will want another one the following year.

57

Duncan,

Scotland without onions and bigots 21/01/2007 16:16:51

36 DEREK FAE YELL

Perhaps this time their breeks will catch and rip and show us what arses they really are.

One worry is that Alex Salmond appears to be taking a step back from referendum and talking now of a white paper, in the first hundred days. Maybe he is boxing clever, but if he starts pulling back he is going to split the vote.

58

Eve,

Scotland 21/01/2007 16:39:46

#63. Duncan: The SNP want to convice the Majourity to vote for independence, the worrey is if they do it right away the people might get Scared and listen and belive the unionist Scare storys if they hold of a wee bit and prove that the can handle Holyrood more effectly than Westminst (Opps I ment Labour party) then the people will maybe see that there nothing to fear but fear its self or be it actually staying within the union.


It's all about timeing and a balancing act, which no dought the SNP have been planning for, for quite some time now.

I would vote YES for independence in a referndum tomorrow, though there people out ther who need a wee bit mor convincing. (Lets convince them it's a good idea, Let spread the word)

59

James,

Dundee 21/01/2007 17:00:24

This unholy arrangemet is already in place in Dundee City Council.
SNP is the largest Party, however not simple majority.
Labour, Lib and Tory all in it together in coalition.

This tells its own story about these pretty pollys.
Any switherers do not vote for the Unionists parties if want change, as they are the three peaks of the tricorn unionist hat.

It's time for change.

60

fiferjohn,

benbecula 21/01/2007 17:19:10

the way i see it if as it is looking 80% want a referendum it isn't going to matter because the Scottish people aren't allowed to have any form of self determination . that was the way labour set up the voting system for the Scottish parliament .i think they wanted to make sure if Scotland did wake up to how they are being ripped off ,we can't do anything about it because the parliament is filled with to many London yes men and woman and with to much to lose .so once again the people of Scotland lose their right of self determination . i thought we lived in a free counrty but only if you fall in line with westminister if you do not lose all right to a free voice on what they want for their counrty.

61

robert SHIVAGO,

livingston 21/01/2007 18:02:17

can any one explain to me what a LIB DEM is.i only read about them in the daily rags.they always talk about queer substances.

62

Derick fae Yell,

21/01/2007 18:33:03

re 63 and 64

Sounds like management speak, but Independence is a process, as well as an outcome. and in some ways it needs to go at the pace of the slowest. E.g. I am not a royalist, but am perfectly happy for the Queen to remain Head of State, post Independence if that is what royalist Scots want.

So am quite relaxed about timing of a referendum, and even whether it is won or lost. This time. The waves come and go on the beach - but the tide is aye comin in.

Wha kens, even the Lib Dems might see the light eventually!

63

Harryc,

21/01/2007 20:27:20

Oh my GOD this is very tedious now. I think we all now know the plot, the Scotsman prints a story which doesn't comply with the Nationalists opinion, and the William Wallace brigade are out in force, i.e. "We're right and anyone who DARES oppose us is a horrible person blah blah." Seriously, I refuse to believe that this is the direction this country is headed, surely not all Scots are this idiotic.

64

Bonnie Laddie,

21/01/2007 21:18:24

Ooooh that’s a big blow - who’s gonna be voting Lib Dems anyway ?

Let’s get oot of the union and sort oot all the political parties efterwords !

65

Robbie,

NZ 21/01/2007 21:56:41

Quote from article, “Local community leaders, including Dumbarton Labour MSP Jackie Baillie, say that the jobs from the base are vital to the area. She claims that 7,000 people work directly at the base, with another 4,000 jobs dependent on it locally.”
Being on the other side of the globe I know little of the ‘Trident’ debate and if not for the internet and the ‘Scotsman’ in particular (despite its political hue) would know virtually nothing about recent events in Scotland. However whenever and wherever the time and place, claiming that weapons manufacturing are acceptable because they provide jobs is indeed a sad indictment of a forced economic choice on a community.
Two pictures of the ‘arms industry’ that haunt me are the luxury yachts owned by ‘arms dealers’ seen on a documentary here and the seemingly never ending supply of guns and bullets in lands where the people cannot afford food and education, we see on the news. Who supplies and at what price all these weapons to ‘3rd World’ nations? If bullets were edible they’d all be obese.
Difficult to believe 'old' Labour supporters holding these beliefs.

66

Robbie,

NZ 21/01/2007 22:58:01

38. Scaramouche / 11:55am 21 Jan 2007
“ First past the post has always been the mark of winning.”
This argument has been thrashed out all over the globe and consensus is that FPP is undoubtedly undemocratic.
So many examples where a party which the majority of the people voted AGAINST gets full power - a dictatorship of the cabinet. Perhaps most wars could have been avoided if PR had been the electoral system.
Imagine the world if the American Senate and congress had more parties, giving more of its people a vote.
Why do fewer voters turn out in FPP elections, they know that there vote is wasted or they have to cast a vote against the party the don’t want rather than for a party that they do want.
This argument FPP (First past the Post) vs. MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) is quite frankly ‘passé’.
With FPP there would always be a Labour or (most likely) a Conservative Government. If SNP supporters wishes to oust the Tories logic forced them to vote Labour and vice versa. I’m sure this was thoroughly discussed in Scotland.

67

Gnasher,

21/01/2007 23:08:06

Derick fae Yell, 69 and Bonnie Laddie, 73 - I see you've discovered that using a few ersatz-Scots words increases the convincing nature of your comment to the power of three. Och aye, the noo.

68

Steve,

Bo'ness 21/01/2007 23:56:37

Gnasher, your argument doesn't hold water in any dialect. You cant cheat democracy.

69

Dave M,

22/01/2007 00:11:41

That's a terrible blow, Murdo.

70

Royster,

22/01/2007 00:48:18

#45. Alec in Chicago, The Scots can vote on English matters because they have representatives (MPs) at the national UK parliament at Westminster (England does not have its own parliament, it is ruled directly by the national UK parliament). With the exception of a few areas which are reserved for the national UK parliament (defence, foreign policy, constitution, overall fiscal matters etc), the Scots parliament runs Scotland and the people of Scotland elect another group of representatives (MSPs) to sit in it. The Westminster parliament has the right to close the Scottish parliament (the national parliament is the supreme power in the UK like I believe Congress/Constitution is in the US), though I doubt it would do so without the Scottish voting for such a move. The Scottish parliament is not allowed to hold a referendum to pull out of the UK but the SNP has said it would hold a referendum to renegotiate the Act of Union which amounts to the same thing. This sounds reasonable but it may not stand up in the courts should the SNP get a referendum bill passed. As for returning to your ancestral homeland, there is nothing stopping you at the moment unless you mean you wish to come and work without a visa or passport from another EU state or a grandparent born in the UK (not sure about the latter, check with UK consulate). It is unlikely that an independent Scotland would give people with Scots ancestry the "Right to Return" like in Israel. Scotland's population is falling but goverments don't like handing out passports as they also have to pay social security expenses.

71

Robbie,

NZ 22/01/2007 01:54:00

38. Scaramouche / 11:55am 21 Jan 2007
If you come back to this re your criticism of PR and analogy, “” If wee Jimmy breaks the tape first in a race, he doesn't expect to share his prize or the winners podium with the 2nd and 3rd, does he?”
Exactly what is wrong with FPP. ‘If wee Jimmy breaks the tape first in a race, (ie., gets the most votes - say it again wins most public support MOST VOTES) he doesn't expect to be declared the loser and another person, or party wins (more seats?) undemocratic system and possible to Gerrymandering.

72

Royster,

22/01/2007 06:18:59

Robbie, Trouble with PR is that it leads to stagnation and endless coalitions. I don't like the list system because people are not directly elected and are therefore less accountable. FPP is not perfect but I find it the most democratic. it has also served our country well by allowing it take decisive action when needed.

73

Robbie,

NZ 22/01/2007 06:56:00

81. Royster
Hi Royster believe it or not - we must disagree!!!
1 “FPP is not perfect but I find it the most democratic.”
FPP allows government by parties that the majority have voted against. Even to win against a party the polled more of the popular votes. Examples in UK, USA and in NZ before MMP.
2 “ it has also served our country well by allowing it take decisive action when needed.”
Decisive action can also be described as ‘dictatorship of the Cabinet’. FPP supporters clamber for ‘strong government which too often means decisions taken that the majority of the electorate oppose. Democratic???
3 “.. PR is that it leads to stagnation and endless coalitions.”
Coalitions give governments that represent the MAJORITY of the voters. It helps alleviate the ‘crap’ of adversarial politics where the opposition oppose everything by definition.
‘ endless coalitions” where apart from say Italy and where are they struggling. I’ll get back with stats that show PR nations more stabil than others.
4 “.. I don't like the list system because people are not directly elected…
Under FPP “the electoral seat representative of (usually only two parties ) is still elected by the party. Any true independent would not ‘win’ the party ticket as is as much as a party ‘hack’ as a list MP.
5 Statistics show many times in the past ‘strong’ governments elected under FPP where in fact ‘minority governments (as far a actual poling numbers went). Why did and do nation after nation elect to have some form of PR system. Usually the have a commission from all walks of life who report back to the Government and on, I believe, all occasions a PR system has won out. Imagine USA and England with a PR system, once the parties realise the idea of governing is to offer the best for the people and the country not squabble for the sake of it. Under PR systems there are much better multi-party select committees which offer fair and comprom

74

livilion,

22/01/2007 09:27:58

#79. Royster
Issues that are devolved to Holyrood:

* health
* education and training
* local government
* social work
* housing
* planning
* tourism, economic development and financial assistance to industry
* some aspects of transport, including the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbours
* law and home affairs, including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
* the Police and Fire services
* the environment
* natural and built heritage
* agriculture, forestry and fishing
* sport and the arts
* statistics, public registers and records

How many of these were already run from the Scottish Office pre-devolution?

Reserved issues:

Scots outnumbered 10 to 1 on these issues at Westminster.
* constitutional matters
* UK foreign policy
* UK defence and national security
* fiscal, economic and monetary System
* immigration and nationality
* energy: electricity, coal, gas and nuclear energy
* common markets
* trade and industry, including competition and customer protection
* some aspects of transport, including railways, transport safety and regulation
* employment legislation
* social security
* gambling and the National Lottery
* data protection
* abortion, human fertilisation and embryology, genetics, xenotransplantation and vivisection
* equal opportunities

Which of these would you say were the more important?

75

Pete39,

Tassy 22/01/2007 09:30:42

Well the Liberals used to rule the roost in the 1930's, but they got it wrong so you had seventy years of Labour rule. I would hope that they had an icicles chance in hell of joining the next Scottish government, no matter who they were.

76

Royster,

22/01/2007 09:34:48

#83. The reserved issues of course.

77

Royster,

22/01/2007 09:43:11

#83. Having said that, health, housing, law are very important. English MPs may outnumber Scottish MPs 10-to-1 but you are assuming English MPs will always vote the same way, which they don't. Under Labour, in particular, Scotland's influence at Westminster is huge. With the exception of London, I cannot think of another area of the UK which has so much clout.

78

Jay Jay,

Edinburgh 22/01/2007 15:35:31

SC @25

"The Lib Dems are a socialist party" (SC, 2007)

You dont really follow politics much do you?

79

Eve,

Scotland 22/01/2007 15:59:48

It would appear by todays pappers that Whitehall have been ripping us off and not mettioning things that matter to Scotland in Brussels.

80

Robbie,

NZ 22/01/2007 18:06:06

Royster in #81 and Scaramouche in #38, you both endorse FPP (First Past the Post) electoral system as compared to a PR (Proportional Representstion) such as New Zealand’s MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) which has 60 Electoral Seat MPs (FPP - including 6 Maori seats) and 60 List Seat MPs = total of 120 MPs giving a fair representation of the voting choices of the nation. This Parliament is the supreme voice of the people. Parliament rules OK. No single party can shove its views down the nation’s throat without consultation and reasoned debate (as in these forums insult people or other parties and they’ll NEVER be won over - I‘m new to this but still amazed how often I‘ve seen posters call others ‘fool‘, ‘stupid‘ and worse and expect to win a point or are they simply showing off or grandstanding to other posters?). Under your beloved FPP one party gets to govern by winning seats only, the popular vote can be and often is of no consequence. This ‘winning’ party (which in the past favoured the Tories) than elects. normal its leader as PM, forms a government, and then a cabinet which has dictatorial powers. To remain in cabinet one must accept ’collective responsibility’ (members of the Cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them) and then parliament or the ‘elected‘ MPs also must normally just toe the party or the cabinet‘s line.
The differences and fairness of these two systems has been hotly debated and to my best knowledge the weight of opinion concerning the ‘most’ democratic’ comes down in favour of MMP or Proportional Representation.
Most of us live in plural societies and a true democrat would surely accept the our legislative body should reflect that plurality. PR offers this FPP does not. I accept that you both may be busy but as you’ve made statements which I feel do not accurately portray the workings of FPP - I’d really appreciate an answer.

81

livilion,

livingston 22/01/2007 18:09:39

#86. Royster
So will Scots MPs at Westminster be expected to vote in 'a particular way'?

On the issues that realy matter to a Sovereign State, Scotland's voice is no more than arbiter elegantiarum to England's political will.

In much the same way that I expect the Greens at Holyrood to have 'huge clout' come the end of May.

Influence when it comes to veto, but no influence to instigate policy.

82

Derick fae Yell,

22/01/2007 21:18:26

#79 Royster girns at Alex in Chicago;
"It is unlikely that an independent Scotland would give people with Scots ancestry the "Right to Return" like in Israel. Scotland's population is falling but goverments don't like handing out passports as they also have to pay social security expenses."

Yeah, Yeah, I dunna ken aboot 'Right to Return' but surely descendants o Scots Exiles, that haes da wit, an smeddum an da committment ta want ta come back Scotland Reborn, will also hae da drive and talent ta CONTRIBUTE. Whit does du think - dat dey will return ta Scotland ta be on da DOLE? Dey maybe winna hae 'preference' but da country needs talent an dey will hae at laest as muckle legal right ta come hom, an maybe more emotional inspiration ta do so, as ony idder immigrant.

Onywey, dat will be a decision fur Scotland, no dee!! Fur a mercy.

As fur yun fule #76 Gnasher at seems ta despise even da slichtest 'taint' o Scots written or spoken:

If I want ta write in Scots, whole or partial, or in Queeniespaek fae time ta time (fur da benefit o Alex in Chicago dis time as it happened), I WILL NO BE AKSIN DEE O Gnasher inferiorised son o D C Thompson.

PS cod is extinct or at least moastly geen awey tae da Spanish, so I doot der no such thing as 'cod scots' Racist Chantyfill
PPS awey a boil dee heid.
PPPS cultural argument for Independence, anybody??

83

fiferjohn,

benbecula 22/01/2007 21:35:42

royster
if you mean by blair.brown,reid.darling and co they may be Scottish and labour but they only give a shit about power and that does not extend pass watford .you must be one hell of a labour die especially after the item today in the BBC and the herald


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.