For those of you who live furth of civilisation (or even the UK), the Guardian is not in favour of the Scottish Breakaway.....
The political story due to become the biggest in the UK, and the one that should really strike fear into Gordon Brown and the entire British Labour movement, is nothing to do with Boris or Ken or Dave, but Wendy.
The Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, in a genuinely jaw-dropping moment, has signalled support for a referendum on Scottish independence. And she wants it now. The calculation is that the SNP would lose a popular vote on the constitution, putting to bed any debate over independence for a generation and skewering Alex Salmond into the bargain. It's also precisely the opposite of what Alexander has been arguing ever since she assumed the leadership.
And what makes this announcement truly surprising is not just the scale of the U-turn but that it was clearly done without the say-so, and to the apparent irritation, of the prime minister. Nothing is supposed to happen in Scottish Labour politics without the agreement of Gordon Brown. The fact that Alexander, often derided as the Tony Blair figure to the prime minister's George Bush, has decided to ignore Brown, says more about his dwindling authority than any Westminster backbench rebellion.
But regardless of what it says about the state of the Labour party, one thing is now certain - there will be a referendum on whether the British political state should cease to exist, probably in 2010. That, of course, is also the probable date for the next general election.
That coincidence of dates underlines just what a gamble Labour in Scotland is taking. After the wreckage of last week's local council elections, it seems clear that the Conservatives will be in with a genuine shout of taking power in two years' time. So far the Scottish electorate has proved impervious to David Cameron's charms; the Tories in Scotland are still spoken about with real distaste by a significant majority of the electorate. It is hard to believe the brand will ever be truly decontaminated north of the border. The referendum therefore offers the Scots a neat way of escaping a Tory government - leave the union.
Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Des Browne and other Labour MPs could then be in a curious position; elected to a British House of Commons, they would have to leave because their country is no longer represented at Westminster. And if Labour is deprived of its Scottish contingent it seems unlikely that the party will form a majority in the rest of the UK for years to come.
But of course the Alexander argument is that none of this will happen. She and the Labour leadership in Scotland appear to believe they have called the SNP's bluff - that the nationalists are actually running scared of a vote they know they will lose. As such, this is the greatest miscalculation in modern British political history.
The SNP believes that a referendum in 2010 offers perhaps the best possible prospect for a "yes" vote. At present, opinion polls are fluid. What seems clear from the polls is that the preferred current option for most Scots is a parliament with greater powers - for example over tax and benefits - but within the UK. But crucially, when the option of greater powers is removed, the polls show virtually an even split for and against independence. Oddly, Alexander wants the referendum to be on the straight yes/no question, which dramatically increases independence support.
In two years, the situation should be more favourable for the nationalists. Not only will there be the feared prospect of a Tory government, but Salmond will have had two more years of (so far) popular SNP government, and the "no" campaign will be led by a divisive and weak Labour party. And how much stomach will the Conservatives really have for a "Save the union" campaign when they spend much of their time complaining about subsidy junkies and Scots MPs abusing the West Lothian question?
But the really worrying thing for Labour in Scotland is that their visceral dislike of Scottish nationalism - albeit with its social democratic, pro-immigration, pro-Europe political platform - means they have misread the views of the electorate. Most Scots, indeed most Labour voters, do not share the genuine antagonism towards independence felt by the leadership. Many are unconvinced, but most are not hostile. Moreover, a careful analysis of polling data shows a considerable churn among independence supporters - a substantial group of Scottish voters have expressed support for independence at least once. If that support can be hardened, so that these occasional nationalists become committed independence supporters, the union's prospects look bleak indeed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... d.scotland
This clown is (currently) the leader of "New Labour" in the Scottish Parliament, but she doesn't appear to know the rules governing that body ensure that she can't even table her own referendum bill, calling for a public vote on independence.
Scottish Parliament rules (as devised by the Westmonster parliament) require that MSPs proposing legislation need the support of 18 colleagues from at least two of the major parties.
The rules also state that a bill cannot be introduced if the government of the day plans its own legislation on the same proposal within the parliament's four year term. Which it does.
So, as far as I can see, all she has done is disembowel the Labour party in Scotland, cause almost terminal embarrassment to Labour throughout Britain, possibly even surpassing the local elections in England, and provide those of us of the nationalist persuasion with hours of innocent (and not so innocent) fun..........
Blundering Bendy
Blundering Bendy
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
Blundering Bendy
Fascinating, it seems that this story is going to run and run, its my guess that unless something radical happens, Scotland will probably opt for independence when this referendum is called. Of course if that were to happen I would be pleased for the Scots and the emergence of Scotland as an independent country is quite an exciting idea, though of course any change in the position of the UK has huge implications for us here in the Republic, interesting times all round.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Blundering Bendy
It'll give the English Tories one heck of a boost. They'll have a lot of electoral surplus to alienate before they lose power. :-1
It has been noticeable for years that the Scottish political make-up was very different to the English and I have a certain sympathy with a desire for increased devolution to the point that Scotland could be called independent. At the same time, I'm assuming that the current complete freedom of movement of goods and people is something Scotland would like to continue? Or are we looking at border controls? Do you want to remain a constitutional monarchy? What about the armed forces?
Sems to me that simply separating ourselves to whatever extent is deemed desirable is going to take a while to do...
It has been noticeable for years that the Scottish political make-up was very different to the English and I have a certain sympathy with a desire for increased devolution to the point that Scotland could be called independent. At the same time, I'm assuming that the current complete freedom of movement of goods and people is something Scotland would like to continue? Or are we looking at border controls? Do you want to remain a constitutional monarchy? What about the armed forces?
Sems to me that simply separating ourselves to whatever extent is deemed desirable is going to take a while to do...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Blundering Bendy
Clodhopper;860440 wrote: It'll give the English Tories one heck of a boost. They'll have a lot of electoral surplus to alienate before they lose power. :-1
It has been noticeable for years that the Scottish political make-up was very different to the English and I have a certain sympathy with a desire for increased devolution to the point that Scotland could be called independent. At the same time, I'm assuming that the current complete freedom of movement of goods and people is something Scotland would like to continue? Or are we looking at border controls? Do you want to remain a constitutional monarchy? What about the armed forces?
Sems to me that simply separating ourselves to whatever extent is deemed desirable is going to take a while to do...
That's precisely why most scots are ambivalent about total independence. The Guardian is usually fairly even handed in it's reporting-more so than the rabid anti snp murdoch papers. Labour are really misreading things in scotland and antagonising a lot of die hard labour supporters. It used to be a standing joke that a monkey would get elected so long as it was in the labour party. Not any more.
If it is a simple yes or no then most would, I think, vote yes.
As to the armed forces a surprisingly high proportion of them are scots.-10% of them are with 8% of the population. 16% of the casualties in iraq and afghanistan have been scots.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... abroad.php
There was hostility to the iraq war anyway. Disbanding the scottish regiments while they are involved in something like that and ignoring public sentiment about the issue is metaphorically like pissing on your own electorate while you are shafting them. (An ex soldier I know used the analogy which I thought quite colourful) Recruitment is down about 75% (I think, it's about that)
It has been noticeable for years that the Scottish political make-up was very different to the English and I have a certain sympathy with a desire for increased devolution to the point that Scotland could be called independent.
Very true-same as the welsh and the north of england and for much the same reasons-the old industrial heartlands tend to be more socialist on outook than the south east. Without scotland there would be no labour governments, even with them over the last fifty six years there have only had been labour governments for about twenty three of them (just guessing but I think that's about right). The tories have hardly any votes to lose and it's only PR that gets them any seats in the numpty house.
It's more about labour becoming making themselves very unpopular than about a desire for independence per se but labour in scotland needs to be very careful about what it does next. If GB had an election now I think he and alastair darling would lose their seats.
It has been noticeable for years that the Scottish political make-up was very different to the English and I have a certain sympathy with a desire for increased devolution to the point that Scotland could be called independent. At the same time, I'm assuming that the current complete freedom of movement of goods and people is something Scotland would like to continue? Or are we looking at border controls? Do you want to remain a constitutional monarchy? What about the armed forces?
Sems to me that simply separating ourselves to whatever extent is deemed desirable is going to take a while to do...
That's precisely why most scots are ambivalent about total independence. The Guardian is usually fairly even handed in it's reporting-more so than the rabid anti snp murdoch papers. Labour are really misreading things in scotland and antagonising a lot of die hard labour supporters. It used to be a standing joke that a monkey would get elected so long as it was in the labour party. Not any more.
If it is a simple yes or no then most would, I think, vote yes.
As to the armed forces a surprisingly high proportion of them are scots.-10% of them are with 8% of the population. 16% of the casualties in iraq and afghanistan have been scots.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... abroad.php
There was hostility to the iraq war anyway. Disbanding the scottish regiments while they are involved in something like that and ignoring public sentiment about the issue is metaphorically like pissing on your own electorate while you are shafting them. (An ex soldier I know used the analogy which I thought quite colourful) Recruitment is down about 75% (I think, it's about that)
It has been noticeable for years that the Scottish political make-up was very different to the English and I have a certain sympathy with a desire for increased devolution to the point that Scotland could be called independent.
Very true-same as the welsh and the north of england and for much the same reasons-the old industrial heartlands tend to be more socialist on outook than the south east. Without scotland there would be no labour governments, even with them over the last fifty six years there have only had been labour governments for about twenty three of them (just guessing but I think that's about right). The tories have hardly any votes to lose and it's only PR that gets them any seats in the numpty house.
It's more about labour becoming making themselves very unpopular than about a desire for independence per se but labour in scotland needs to be very careful about what it does next. If GB had an election now I think he and alastair darling would lose their seats.