Slugger O'Toole

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from Doug Daniel (see all)

Doug Daniel has commented 3 times (0 in the last month).

1. Comment on Time for a closer look at what’s under the bonnet of a Scottish referendum?
   on 2 February 2012 at 10:37 am

   Few points:

   The UK thing – Angus above is quite right. Technically speaking, the UK terminology only exists due to the 1800 Acts of Union, because the addition of Ireland meant it was no longer accurate to say “Great Britain”. But these acts were not formally repealed in the case of the Republic of Ireland until decades after the formation of the Free State.

   Australia and Canada have never been in the UK, because they never had their own crowns. They were only ever part of the British Empire. But what Scotland is proposing to do is to reach the same level of independence as these two countries. As they were never in the UK, it’s inaccurate to say that they “left” the UK when they became independent.

   The simple fact is that while there is indistinction as to whether the UK describes political union or monarchical union, it’s confusing to describe Scottish independence as “leaving the United Kingdom”. We may think “we all know what it means”, but then why is that better than just asking if Scotland should become an independent country?

   As to Quintin’s 3 criticisms of the SNP’s strategy thus far:

   1. Where will Scotland be economically? I think the more pertinent question is “where will the UK be economically?” This Tory government is a disaster, and it’s not looking like it’ll get any better soon. The UK may still have that AAA rating (the sole justification for their handling of the economy), but surely no one seriously thinks that’ll last for another two and a half years? Things are going to get even worse, and by 2014 it is entirely feasible that Scots will think “I don’t massively care about independence, but anything has got to be better than this. Might as well give it a shot.”

   We’re hearing about the dismantling of the English NHS and English students being priced out of university, while our NHS sits there quite happily, and our students aren’t being put off university. So we can already see the benefits of devolution. But we’re now getting into the juicy stuff – “reforms” of reserved institutions. It’s going to be like shooting fish in a barrel from here on forward, because all the SNP has to do is say “we would not be cutting benefits to the weakest in society if we had control of those powers”. Some of these things could have been neutralised by “devo max”, but the unionist parties have given that a body swerve, so they’re left arguing the case that Scotland is better off having draconian “reforms” imposed from London from a government we largely rejected, than to be able to decide these things in Edinburgh.

   2. Who’s really arguing over process? The Scot Gov has said the referendum will be in 2014 and published a timeline to show why, yet unionists keep banging on about ” a quick referendum” and are the ones that claim there is no mandate on a specific date. The Scot Gov has just launched a public consultation to see how people feel about 16 year olds voting and the presence of a third option, yet unionists are pre-emptively saying no to either of these things. The legality issue is purely a Westminster thing, and they have the power to make it a complete non-issue. If the SNP are the ones to be criticised over this stuff, you’re effectively saying they should be just leaving it up to Westminster to decide all these things, even though it’s a Holyrood referendum. Bizarre, quite frankly.

   3. It’s being the most honest of all the parties. It’s acknowledging that not everyone is polarised between independence and the status quo, so allowing debate to flourish. The position of Labour is “vote no and then we’ll maybe think about increased powers. Honest.” This is made doubly dishonest by the fact they’re going to refuse to specify which powers should be devolved, saying it’s a debate for AFTER the referendum. Sorry, but Scotland has been in this position before, being promised action after the 1979 devolution referendum if they voted no, and then not getting it for 20 years. People won’t fall for that trick again.

   You seem to be observing matters from just a little bit too far outside if you think any of these three are flaws in the SNP strategy.

   Go to comment

2. Comment on Maybe the referendum question is not so simple
   on 26 January 2012 at 1:05 pm

   But it’s nonsensical to word the question in favour of the status quo.

   “Do you want to stay in the UK?”
   “Why, what’s my alternative?”

   We are asking people if they would like to make a specific change to the constitutional arrangement of Scotland. Therefore, it is obvious that we should word the question to that effect: “Do you want to make this specific change to Scotland?”

   Honestly, the longer unionists prattle on about the number of questions, the wording of the questions, the timing of the referendum etc, the less time they have to argue the lesser-seen “positive case for the union”. Meanwhile, the SNP are just getting on with putting forward the case for independence. Which strategy is more likely to go putting people off? I think the direction of travel in the polls – as well as the ever-growing membership of the SNP – tells you the answer to that.

   Go to comment

3. Comment on Maybe the referendum question is not so simple
   on 26 January 2012 at 11:46 am

   Three things:

   1. Adding “or not” to the end of the question makes it “Do you agree blah blah or not?” How can anyone answer “no” to that? Unless the options are then “agree” and “disagree”, then it makes no grammatical or logical sense to answer “no” to a question where all bases are covered.

   “Do you agree or not?”
   “Yes.”
   “Well, which one?”

   2. The goal of the SNP is independence for Scotland, not home rule in the UK. You and Martin Kettle are actually completely overlooking the game that is being played out. Unionists have put themselves in a position where devo max cannot possibly be put on the referendum. The SNP will be able to present a straight yes/no having given people the chance to debate devo max, but prevented from putting it on the referendum by the unionists. The debate is opening people up to the idea of giving Holyrood more clout, to the extent that the very idea of sticking to the status quo will soon become one of ridicule. Presented with a ridiculous option and the option that offers all the powers they’ve been talking about (but with a few more), people will vote for independence.

   I think you must have to be of a unionist mindset to miss this, presumably more through blind hope than anything.

   3. Framer (above) almost has an unloaded question. “Do you agree to Scotland becoming an independent state?” That says all that needs to be said. Why add the “leaving the UK” part? It’s just superfluous, unless you’re looking to make people feel sad about “leaving” the UK – in which case, it’s a loaded question.

   Go to comment