Sunday, November 01, 2009

SNP Want's Scots to Waive Their Rights to Determine Their Future

The SNP released a press release last night. It quotes MSP Dr Alasdair Allan who said:

"All parties must endorse the right of the people of Scotland to have their say on Scotland’s constitutional future."


So here's a question why don't the SNP want the people of Scotland to have their say? They want to ask a question of the people which says:

"I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."


Look at that carefully. They are going to let the UK Parliament have a say in what future Scotland has. They want to negotiate a settlement with the UK Parliament. They are not actually backing the people of Scotland having a say on the constitutional future of Scotland.

There is no blueprint for what that future holds, that decision is to be discussed between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. The people of Scotland are actually be asked do they agree to waive their rights over the constitutional future of their country into the hands of the politicians.

So why aren't the SNP even a party that is prepared to let the people of Scotland have their say on the constitutional future of Scotland?

I've already stated I'd welcome a referendum of substance, that is something the Lib Dems have not ruled out, but it is something the SNP are scared to give the people.

16 comments:

DougtheDug said...

You're grasping a straws here Stephen, trying to justify the Lib-Dems' anti-democratic stance in denying the Scots a referendum on independence.

The reference to the Good Friday Agreement is a distraction. That was a framework for devolved government for NI within the UK not a referendum on the independence of NI. It was a vote on the procedures and arrangements of devolution and of inter-governmental co-operation not on the national status of NI.

What the SNP propose is a referendum on independence. Do you want independence or not?

If independence is the choice then there has to be negotiations on splitting up the assets and debts of the UK between Scotland and England along with the two provinces of Wales and NI which will stay with England but working out how these assets and debts will be split before the Scots have decided on independence or not would be a waste of time. It is the way it happened in Czechoslovakia, there was a decision two create two independent states and then they negotiated on how to split the assets between them.

Alex Salmond keeps changing what Independence means, do we keep the Queen or not, the army or not, the Bank of England or not, and if we do keep the Old Lady of Threadneddle Street do they set our interest rate.

No he doesn't. The Queen would stay as Head of State just like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on, Scotland would have its own defence forces though England could rent bases in Scotland in defence co-operation if required and Scotland will keep the pound till it decides to create its own currency or go into the Euro. Not rocket science to understand.

They are going to let the UK Parliament have a say in what future Scotland has.

Are you saying that the UK Parliament deciding on Scotland's future is a bad thing? Welcome to the SNP Stephen because that is what the situation is now. Of course that wouldn't happen during the independence negotiations because it would be about the splitting of assets and debts between two new independent nations and there would be no UK Parliament after that. In fact there would be no UK Parliament during the negotiations either, it would be negotiations between the two new nations of Scotland and England.

So why aren't the SNP even a party that is prepared to let the people of Scotland have their say on the constitutional future of Scotland?

That, Stephen, is brilliant. The Lib-Dems deny the people of Scotland a chance to vote in a referendum on Scotland's status as a nation and it's all the SNP's fault for wanting a referendum.

Stephen Glenn said...

Doug if I recall the Scottish and Welsh Referendums were also a framework of what was to happen. The SNP are asking the Scottish people not to decide their consititutional future but to waive their rights to decide it. There is no provsion from what I see that after negotiations have been entered that the 'settlement' whatever that may be will be presented to the people of Scotland. The SNP are asking people to vote on a fate accompli without any details, of the implications.

The army, how is that going to be funded. How can we create our own currency Salmond originally said no Central Bank? He's also recently said the Bank Of England will set interest rates. So is that independence, it sounds like Federalism to me?

The SNP question is not a referendum on Independence, is it putting you hand up in the room to speak to the teacher and hoping the other pupils at your table let you speak.

Wardog said...

I really thought that you'd paint this as it really it, you must be so ashamed of your party right now.

I know many others who will be.

Wasn't it this type of fudged compromise position that got you unelected?

What will you do when Salmond offers your favoured option on the ballot?

Are you seriously arguing that your against this referendum because it's held of St Andrews day, oh that's going to go down really well, I think they call it a wipeout.

DougtheDug said...

Doug if I recall the Scottish and Welsh Referendums were also a framework of what was to happen.

And they were also on the issue of administration and procedures within a devolved government not on the principle of national independence.

The SNP are asking the Scottish people not to decide their consititutional future but to waive their rights to decide it.

Run that one past me again. The SNP want to ask the people of Scotland if they want to become an independent country and that's waiving their right to decide on their constitutional future?

There is no provsion from what I see that after negotiations have been entered that the 'settlement' whatever that may be will be presented to the people of Scotland.

This will not be a negotiation on a political, "settlement", in the sense of a devolved parliament as it will be the creation of an independent state which is clear in its scope. The only unknown is exactly how the government owned assets and debt will be split and that will be done on the equitable basis of population.

The SNP are asking people to vote on a fate accompli without any details, of the implications.

The implications are that Scotland will be an independent state. People understand that very easily.

The army, how is that going to be funded. How can we create our own currency Salmond originally said no Central Bank? He's also recently said the Bank Of England will set interest rates. So is that independence, it sounds like Federalism to me?

The army will be funded by the government in the same way as Denmark, Finland and Norway fund their armed forces. Since Scotland is an oil producer which produces more oil than Qatar then it will find it easier to fund its armed forces than Denmark or Finland. Scotland's currency will be the pound until there is a decision on creating a Scottish Currency or joining the Euro.

The SNP question is not a referendum on Independence, is it putting you hand up in the room to speak to the teacher and hoping the other pupils at your table let you speak.

I simply don't get that analogy at all. If the population of Scotland decide on independence then that's that. It then becomes negotiations on the equitable split of the Government assets and debts of the defunct UK state between Scotland and England.

Sophia Pangloss said...

Stephen this is just so sad. You sound rather like a child in a huff. There is only one question worth asking in Scotland right now, and the SNP want to ask it. And the LibDem party don't want it asked.

How very democratic. Now please, take your party and leave the stage.

Wardog said...

Stephen, your arguments here are getting a bit mixed up, much like 'federalism'.

I suspect that the lib dems message, whatever it is, will once again get lost in the arguments, once again, they have failed to grasp the nettle and support a means of achieving their ends..

Your party's decision is base don fear and the possibility that Scots may well vote for independence..

Deferring a referendum for the rather facile reasons you've mentioned is ludicrous and more than little out of desperation.

Jeff is right in his analysis, had your party voted any other way then Tavish would have been 'kaput' and you'd be back at square one.

As it is, your still in the undemocratic hole that your party has dug for itself, indeed it is the Lib Dems that best illustrate the straightjacket of speaking for Scotland and speaking for the UK, one always involves a compromise that no other sovereign nation makes.

Sophia Pangloss said...

Stephen I keep reading this post and trying to make sense of it. You have a problem with a negotiated settlement? You would be more comfortable with a UDI? Is that now LibDem policy?

As an elector, I have always thought that, by casting my vote I empower a representative to act on my behalf. Likewise by answering the SNP's referendum question in the affirmative I will be empowering the Scottish Government to negotiate with whoever it needs to, not just the rump-UK, but also the EU, UN, etc. I just don't see how this is signing away my future. This is taking control over my future in a way I will never be able to under the UK.

You have blogged quite freely in recent weeks of your wish to see a referendum. Big Tavish had made his view quite clear, his is a Unionist party. Are you still comfortable with your party? If you are, you're going to have to be more convincing in your defence of Tavish's policies

Sophia Pangloss said...

The SNP propose a clear identifiable question on Scottish nationhood. Everyone can read and understand that question, it will give a clear and understandable answer. Like it or not, I believe most Scots will accept that clear result.

Those that call for a multi-option referendum are only seeking to fudge and obscure because they fear the Scottish people giving a clear result which they disagree with. The option 'More powers to Holyrood but within the UK' should NOT be on the paper because that option already exists. Holyrood and Westminster can already move switch and exchange powers.

With one proviso: that Westminster agrees. In fact, if Westminster wished it could abolish Holyrood. Where sovereignty resides is the only question worth asking, anything else is housekeeping, administrative detail.

Tam Smith said...

Stephen,Try out my website and keep up to date with my and the SNP activity. Let me know what you think.Are we right or what.

Tam Smith said...

You can not surely as a Scot seek to deny the Scottish people the democratic right to decide their own future.Remember only when it is the will of the Scottish people to be an independent nation will that event take place.

Sophia Pangloss said...

It is a pity you don't respond more on your blog Stephen. You do post plenty, it would be good if you could further justify your points. If that is possible...p

Stephen Glenn said...

Sophia your comments are noted. I did actually say on Twitter on Sunday that I was leaving arena for the afternoon. This week I have also been contending with month end and week end reports combined. Two 10 hour plus days, yesterday's followed by a long trip back home.

I will try and address the various comment made on this thread since my last later on this evening.

Sadly while I am able to email new posts to my blog from work I am not able to view them and respond to comments from my desk.

Stephen Glenn said...

Ok I may have a little more time now.

Sophia said "There is only one question worth asking in Scotland right now, and the SNP want to ask it."

From what I have heard on the doorsteps the number one question is the economy, their jobs, their health provision. Indeed one thing that did get said over and over again on Saturday in the debate was that nobody has heard any actual voter ask the question that you allude to. Only in the political activists circles does it seem to be the only question.

Wardag talks about 'an undemocratic hole'

May I ask what about the Lib Dem votes in 2007 that went even though I disagreed at the time but was away at my fathers funeral at the time of conference.

More to come later.

Stephen Glenn said...

DougtheDug seems to think that the question as put is going to decide a constitutional future.

As I thought I had pointed out just what level of independence does Alex Salmond now seek. Is the Scottish Banking sector going to be reliant on the Bank of England? Are the Scottish people going to be beholden to UK armed forces?

If as you point out it will be funded from Scottish funds has the economy of returns be taken into consideration. So are saying that as we like Norway have oil money we'll be more able to fund it, same old SNP argument. But doesn't Norway also have National Miltary Service?

As you see there is more than merely financial brokering in the negotiations to path a way for independence. All of which should be before the consideration of the people making such a choice.

Stephen Glenn said...

There is still the point about UDI which is a biggie so I will leave that until I have more time this evening.

Sophia Pangloss said...

Didnae mean to be rude stephen, thanks for answering. I meant the only question worth asking within the remit of discussion, the puted referendum. But you knew that.

I mentioned UDI only as an extreme to point up the fact that any settlement will of course be negotiated. The proposed question clearly states who will negotiate, and with what end-goal. I don't envisage a UDI, nor suggest it would be desirable. Nothing's impossible mind.

Please don't raise your blood pressure over me saying 'UDI' it left my lips withour saying cheerio and I couldnae care less.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails