Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Gauin tae pick a fecht
Wendy Alexander, Labour Scottish leader, seems to have announced a significant policy shift. She now wants a referendum on independence and may introduce legislation for it. However, the formal position of Labour is unclear and the other parties are somewhat bemused about the potential shift. According to YouGov (buoyed from calling the London elections right) support for independence drops significantly if the option of changes to devolution is included. Also the underlying strength of Unionist support in Scotland means they begin in the stronger position. It allows the Unionist parties to take the initiative, pick the timing and leaves the SNP being the party that does not want to let the people speak.
Fair Deal @ 08:28 PM
Wonderful Kensei See last paragraph - don’t think she’s even allowed to introduce a Bill. What a shower!!!
Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 02:27 PMI’m actually beginning to feel some sympathy for Wendy - don’t think Gordo would dare put words in Rhodri Morgan’s mouth.
Not that much sympathy though - can’t stop laughing at Nicola Sturgeon’s:
“Is Ms Alexander a secret SNP member ?”.
First Minister’s Questions tomorrow - essential viewing.....Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 02:48 PMIt was always the intention of the SNP Government to introduce a referendum bill in 2010. There was never any chance that such a bill would be passed as all the Unionist parties at Holyrood were committed to voting against it. Until this week that is. Now that Wendy has broken ranks with the rest and pledged Labour to introduce such a bill, it is now certain a referendum will take place.
The trouble is that by the time the bill is introduced, debated clause by clause, a date set for the referendum etc., etc., it will be 2010, which is what the SNP wanted all along!.
Thanks Wendy!
By that year Tory Boy Dave and the rest of the Bullingdon Club will be in power in Westminster and the alternative to independence will be a Scotland facing another decade (or two, or three) of rule by a Tory party supported by only a small minority (perhaps 15% or less) of Scots(Boris for Scottish Governor General anyone??)
Far from wrong footing the SNP, Ms Alexander has shown the tactical nous of Winnie the Pooh here.
With one deft move she has shattered the Unionist united front and scored an own goal to rank with her boss El Gordo’s gaffe in abolishing the 10p Income Tax rate.
No wonder Salmond has a permanent grin.
New Labour! New cockups!Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 02:50 PM“Far from wrong footing the SNP, Ms Alexander has shown the tactical nous of Winnie the Pooh here. “
Perhaps its all part of a Master Plan that when the Cameroonies sweep to power and create an English Conservative State, Gordon will retreat to a Castle Tower in the North to brood on what might have been.
Any nominations for the roles of the three witches? (Perm any 3 from Harman, Blears, Alexander, Jowell and Flint) but Ed Balls will make a splendid ghost.
Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 04:09 PM“I’m pretty damn sure that even if a majority in GB favour a united Ireland they would be opposed to a united Ireland without the consent of NI by a substantial margin.”
I wouldn’t bank on that.
Prionsa, Dewi it looks like our time is fast approaching. Whilst It would have been nice to have an established English government to negotiate on our behalf in winding up the final remnants of the British state, I don’t think there will be time now. Shame really as I was prepared to give a federal union a go at one stage, but ho-hum, we’ll never know now. I doubt too that the powers that be will give us English or the Welsh a referendom on whether we would like independence too so it’s all up to you Prionsa. You know what to do, it’s time as they say!
Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 05:10 PMDewi
Great link!
>>The SNP increased its first preference votes in the ward by 15% to 63%.
“This is a stunning victory,” said SNP leader Alex Salmond.<<
Fuckin hell! Sorry but my vocabulary could not express my opinion more forcefully.
>>so you’ll be wanting a referendum asap I take it then?.<<
oneill, your funeral Brit boy ;¬) As for the other misunderstanding, I am so used to there being a few pedantic arses on here I just assumed you were too. Forget it.
Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 06:23 PMI echo Kensei’s sentiments. Now that the dust has settled it is clear that Gordon or Wendy are lying, seriously, probably both. I can smell scandal. Anyone with sky should watch the Scottish TV news tonight, what a job they done on Wendy. She is doing a u-turn on her u-turn.
>>I’m actually beginning to feel some sympathy for Wendy<<
Dewi,Not drowning waving springs to mind, like the knight defending the bridge in Monty Python whilst all his limbs are chopped off and refusing to see he is beat. Incredibly Salmond is calling for her head, bad strategy?
Phil
>>it looks like our time is fast approaching.<<
I had goosebumps reading that!
Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 06:29 PMAlex on Channel 4:
“Don’t know if Wendy’s trying to destroy Gordon, Gordon trying to destroy Wendy or both trying to destroy each other.”
Scathing about her lack of understanding of Holyrood procedures.Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 07:32 PMConstitution Unit Press statement (HazellWalker version 21)
You might find this academic analysis useful.
Brian Walker
Hon Senior Research Fellow, the Constiution Unit
University College London
A SINGLE REFERENDUM FOR SCOTS TO BREAK UP THE UNION WOULD BE UNLAWFUL TWO REFERENDUMS REQUIRED FOR SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE SAYS THE CONSTITUTION UNITConstitution Unit Press statement
TWO REFERENDUMS REQUIRED FOR SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE SAYS THE CONSTITUTION UNITA single referendum initiated by the SNP government and authorised by the Scottish Parliament could not achieve independence for Scotland. The terms of any independence deal negotiated with the UK government would require a second referendum authorised by Westminster, says the Constitution Unit. A first referendum could only be held on the principle of independence, and authorise the SNP government to enter into negotiation with the UK government about the details.
The Constitution Unit is responding to the apparent U turn on a referendum by Wendy Alexander leader of Scottish Labour, after her call on Alex Salmond’s SNP minority government to “bring it on.”
“We have long argued that Scottish independence requires two referendums, for reasons of law and practical politics” said Constitution Unit director Prof Robert Hazell. “Under the Scotland Act only Westminster can authorise a referendum that would grant Scotland independence. I would be surprised if Gordon Brown has also done a U turn and wants Westminster to hold such a referendum any time soon”.
“But there are also reasons of principle why there should be two referendums. People in Scotland might support independence in principle, but think again when confronted with the terms of independence. The terms will include not just issues like North Sea oil, but division of the national debt, ending all financial transfers from the UK government, and Scotland’s continued membership of the EU. The Scots are entitled to know the detailed terms of independence before making such a big decision”.
The Constitution Unit addressed the referendum issue (among others) in Jo Murkens’ book Scottish Independence – A Practical Guide (Edinburgh University Press, 2002) and made two observations. First, the referendum question would need to be carefully worded to be about commencing negotiations rather than about independence itself, in order to stay within the confines of the powers of the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament defined in the Scotland Act 1998. The question would be on the principle (rather than the details) of independence. Secondly, the terms and conditions of Scottish independence (including that Scotland would separate from the United Kingdom) would be the subject-matter of a second referendum.
Jo Murkens (now law lecturer at the LSE) added: “Wendy Alexander’s rallying call to ‘bring it on’ may be of political significance in Scotland. But in constitutional terms it is little more than an acknowledgment that the Scottish Executive (having obtained legislative authority from the Scottish Parliament) has the power to hold a consultative referendum on negotiations with Westminster. That acknowledgement in no way anticipates the eventual outcome of the negotiation process.”
Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 08:24 PMVery interesting Brain Walker. Funny, I didn’t realise a referendum was constitutionally called for at all. Jack Mcdonell in the last Scottish elections told Alex that he would have been more honest in declaring to the Scottish people that a majority SNP government would declare independence without a referendum.
Goldie things the reult of a referendum should be binding.
For my simple soul I wonder if you could eleaborate on the LEGAL necessity for the second referendum.
P.S. Do you know that Curtice bloke? Is he as clever as he seems?Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 08:49 PMI hope Alex is gentle with her tomorrow - and I’ll tell u something for nothing - if Gordon Brown tried to sack Rhodri Morgan the Labour party in Wales would tell him to take a running jump - for all their obvious prehistoric faults they are a bit thran like that.....
Posted by on May 07, 2008 @ 11:09 PMBrian
Lots of cut’n’paste there, why not just frame an argument? I’m sure you realise what the Scottish people will say to anyone seeking to thwart their democratic intentions, don’t you? Once we negotiate a settlement, are you suggesting that we need the approval of the greater part of the remaining UK population?
>>ending all financial transfers from the UK government, and Scotland’s continued membership of the EU.<<
Well considering that we put in more per person than we take out, fine. And any question regarding Scotland’s membership of the EU would be the same as the remaining UK. I believe that this issue was made clear years ago by the EU, our membership would not be affected, should we have to re-apply, then so would the remaining part of the UK.
Just watched the Scottish newsnight show. The Labour party MSP who drew the short straw to appear tonight was terrified. tried desperately to stick to the party line that two opposing views(Wendy’s and Gordon’s) were somehow not contradictory. The presenter got fed up and was very rude indeed. Cringe worthy. All after a lengthy interview of Salmond, who really has taken to the role of Scottish FM like a duck to water.
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 12:05 AMHi Prince,
I’ve read a good few of your posts on the site. I always assumed you were Scottish and that you support Scottish Independence and the breakup of the UK.
IF that is the case I find it somewhat confusing that you are so obviously interested in all things Irish, although maybe that’s really all things Gaelic. For example, you’re on this site quite a bit. Not to mention your moniker, even tho’ I just did. So, I guess my question is why do you want the breakup of something that you obviously recognise as intimately entwined?
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 12:22 PM@Dewi
“would be opposed to a united Ireland without the consent of NI by a substantial margin”
Why “substantial”?
Since you have chopped up my comment in a way that may make it look out of context, let me clarify that the “substantial margin” refers to the number in Great Britain who would reject ejecting NI from the union without it’s consent NOT the margin required in NI for a united Ireland.
I believe that there is a massive gap between supporting a united Ireland by consent and supporting a united Ireland imposed without consent. If nothing else there is a vast gap in terms of the ethics of those two positions.
The recent Guardian poll showed 41% in GB in favour of a united Ireland and 26% wanting NI to remain in the UK.
So I believe that if a poll question was,
“Given that a majority in NI wish to remain within the UK do you
A) Believe that NI should be united with the RoI irrespective of this.
B) Believe that NI should stay as part of the UK when this is the case.
C) Other / Don’t Know”I think that the A option would shrink back from 41% substantially, to probably no more than something like 10% (though of course that’s a guess), and the B option would rise from 26% to something more substantial.
That was the point I was making.
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 01:18 PMI think that applies to Scotland too. Asking the English whether they think that Scotland should leave the UK will give substantially different results if you ask the question
A) In general.
B) In the context of a majority of Scots supporting the union.
C) In the context of a majority of Scots wanting to leave the union.I believe that the modal position of a typical English person is that if the Scots want to be in the union they should be allowed to stay in it but if they want to leave then they should be allowed to leave and that if the Northern Irish wants to be in the union they should be allowed to stay in it but if they want to leave then they should be allowed to leave.
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 01:27 PMGotcha terrorpin - my mis-understanding of original post.
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 01:58 PMCompletely off-topic but today’s Western Mail front page headline best I’ve ever seen.
Volcano isolates Welsh Patagonia
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 03:22 PMIt could be an absolute classic referendum campaign. I can just visualise Sean Connery’s final broadcast: The Declaration of Arbroath.
“It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”
And of course, it’s Scotland’s oil....At $200 a barrel !!!
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 04:46 PMFair point Terrorpin, which is why any referendum should be worded: “Do you think (insert name of country) should be an independent nation, separate from the UK?” as no part of the UK has the right to push another part out against the wishes of their people. The right to self-determination however is the right of every nation and if England, Scotland and Wales choose to secede from the UK then that leaves Northern Ireland alone remaining in the UK. Look on the bright side though, as the UK’s successor state you could have big Ian, Gerry or Martin sitting on the UN security council!
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 05:02 PM“as the UK’s successor state you could have big Ian, Gerry or Martin sitting on the UN security council!”
Now Phil - that was funny !!!
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 05:18 PMPhil
Anyone would think that you believe some folk have too high an opinion of themselves.
G’day Congal
>>I’ve read a good few of your posts on the site. I always assumed you were Scottish and that you support Scottish Independence and the breakup of the UK.<<
Ok, with ye thus far.
>>IF that is the case I find it somewhat confusing that you are so obviously interested in all things Irish, although maybe that’s really all things Gaelic.<<
Don’t know if I am interested in all or even most things Irish, or Gaelic for that matter. Do you suppose this is contradictory or confusing to someone wishing to see their nation sovereign once again?, How so?, Are Ireland and Scotland so unrelated?, Do tell?
>>For example, you’re on this site quite a bit. Not to mention your moniker, even tho’ I just did.<<
As clear as mud. Though I would hardly be a massive user of this site, semi-regular perhaps.
>>So, I guess my question is why do you want the breakup of something that you obviously recognise as intimately entwined?<<
I think that you are a wee bit confused Congal, care to come back and explain yourself?
Dewi
Here is the Holyrood live FM questions today(top one). The Wendy bashing is quite funny. Check out the response of Salmond to Lib-Dem Nicol Stephens question about 10mins in “Do you feel lucky?”
http://www.holyrood.tv/library.asp?title=First Minister's Questions§ion=30
Posted by on May 08, 2008 @ 09:36 PMHi Prince,
“Don’t know if I am interested in all or even most things Irish, or Gaelic for that matter. Do you suppose this is contradictory or confusing to someone wishing to see their nation sovereign once again?, How so?, Are Ireland and Scotland so unrelated?, Do tell?”
Quite the opposite. For example, Ireland was first colonised by people moving from Scotland to the north coast in and around 10,000 years ago. Then as a result of toing and froing “we” ended up giving Scotland it’s name thro’ the Scottii. As I mentioned in my post I believe these islands to be intimately entwined. However, that goes further – these isles as a whole are a mix. For example, referring to my examples above, the Scottii were originally from SW England before moving to Ireland. Indeed another tribe from the same area, the Errain, then gave Ireland it’s name. We’re the one people and that’s why I’m a Unionist.
“As clear as mud. Though I would hardly be a massive user of this site, semi-regular perhaps.”
What I’m alluding to here is that you seem to show a lot of interest in Northern Ireland and Ireland in general. I would’ve suspected that a Scots Nationalist should be spending more time on Scottish blogs. Perhaps you do? Your moniker I assumed was in reference to Prince Eoghan, son of Niall of the Nine hostages. No? Again I would have thought you would’ve had a Scots related moniker.
“I think that you are a wee bit confused Congal, care to come back and explain yourself?”
I am confused by your obvious interest in the rest of the British Isles when you want a sovereign Scottish “nation”. In short, your participation in this forum, which I welcome, seems at odds with your desire for independence.
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 11:12 AMCongal
I am even more confused, surely you seek to run rings round a mere mortal like my by your superior prose. I can see no other reason for your two posts. Do you know anything about the latest Wendygate laughafon? Do you support a referendum on Scottish independence? There’s two on topic points for next time.
Dodgy historical claims are one thing but using them to state;
>>We’re the one people and that’s why I’m a Unionist.<<
Laughably, we are not to believe that you are a Unionist because of other many and varied factors.
Actually despite your claim, we are not the one people in the UK. The east coast of England could hardly be more different genetically to the Welsh, Irish and most of Scotland and the South West of England. Perhaps your raison datre for being a Unionist could come true after you expunge those not considered part of those who began and named Ireland(In your opinion), and the wider islands fantasy could become a reality(using cultural or ethnic cleansing) under a native Briton type tutelage. You go for it!
>>What I’m alluding to here is that you seem to show a lot of interest in Northern Ireland and Ireland in general. I would’ve suspected that a Scots Nationalist should be spending more time on Scottish blogs. Perhaps you do? Your moniker I assumed was in reference to Prince Eoghan, son of Niall of the Nine hostages. No? Again I would have thought you would’ve had a Scots related moniker.<<
My son is Eoghan, he gets a kick out of seeing his name. There was a prince Eoghan of Dalriada, fought and died in battle against the Germanic Angles. You know the descendants of those you give fealty to. Hold on just why are you a Unionist again?
>>I am confused by your obvious interest in the rest of the British Isles when you want a sovereign Scottish “nation”. In short, your participation in this forum, which I welcome, seems at odds with your desire for independence.<<
Look Congal, I get the feeling that you are looking for a clever way to to tell me to “get tae fuck and mind ma ain business.” Though you just seem to produce the muddled contradictory mess above. In short my desire to see my nation independent has as much to do with visiting slugger, as your excuse for being a Unionist is based in veritas.
Now was wee Wendy’s move designed to further undermine the Calman Commision, since downgraded to a review by Gordy Brown;
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/gauin-tae-pick-a-fecht/P25/
Perhaps I am too Machiavellian in thinking they want to bail out. Since Labour is now on record stating that they will vote for a referendum, will anyone pay any heed to what this review reports. Considering the one thing that they were prohibited from considering, independence..................is the only game in town now.
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 03:01 PMSorry wrong link;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7391667.stm
The pills I am on make my head full o wee motors.
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 03:02 PMBring it on.
When Scotland leaves the UK, where does that leave the Irish six counties? I honestly cannot see the English and the Welsh wanting anything to do with their first and last colony.
The English public should be told in no uncertain terms that their hard earned taxes are being wasted on state jobs for the Irish up in the north east. Basically, a non-productive East Germany which still thrives. So people, tell the English that their money is being sucked dry, then we’ll see changes.
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 03:12 PM
