Posted by
Scottish Unionist
at 10:12 PM.
There are .
While remaining firmly on the party political fence, I will say that in a number of respects I quite admire Jim Murphy. And his solid start as Scottish Secretary does nothing to alter that. The Telegraph
quotes:
The way in which he [Salmond] proposes it is entirely rigged - a referendum on opening negotiations but not a referendum on independence. Instinctively I would counsel against playing a part in any rigged referendum Mr Salmond envisages.
About the SNP’s so-called “arc of prosperity” countries, Murphy said:
Now look what's happening to those countries - Ireland in recession, Iceland really struggling. The UK is the fourth largest economy in the world. We get great strength from that and these other countries the SNP try to compare Scotland to - Ireland, Iceland and others - they're struggling remarkably.
The detailed picture is perhaps a bit more patchwork than that, but a fair point nonetheless.
While remaining firmly on the party political fence, I will say that in a number of respects I quite admire Jim Murphy. And his solid start as Scottish Secretary does nothing to alter that. The Telegraph quotes:
You have not given the full quote.
He said 'The way in which he proposes it is entirely rigged - a referendum on opening negotiations but not a referendum on independence.'
Interesting.
Ignorance or guile?
Neither. Your quote is the same as mine!
Salmond is not stupid, he just thinks everyone else is.
You are lucky to have someone like Jim Murphy north of the border.
Now might be the time for the Unionists to band together and promote a snap referendum, say December.
No SU I meant on his part.
The Scottish Parliament can't hold a referendum to decide if Scotland becomes independent.
Does Murphy genuinely not know that? or is he just playing games?
No SU I meant on his part.
The Scottish Parliament can't hold a referendum to decide if Scotland becomes independent.
Does Murphy genuinely not know that? or is he just playing games?
"The Scottish Parliament can't hold a referendum to decide if Scotland becomes independent."
Hmm - well IF that is true, then it can't hold a referendum in which the question is
"I AGREE/DISAGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."
either, can it?
On the other hand, if the Nat's proposed question is legally OK, then so is any other, and the Unionist parties are free to alter the question as they like.
I don't see where the myth of there being some sort of "get-around" in the question wording comes from. The "get-around" arises from the fact that the legislation only gives effect to a referendum, not the act of independence itself.
Any idea why Kezia Dugdale's blog has been privatised?
That's New Labour for you! ;-)
Seriously though, no idea. Hope not permanent.
Ah, now I know. She has retired from blogging.
Jim Murphy's Job Description:
The primary role of the Secretary of State for Scotland is to promote the devolution settlement and to act as guardian of it. He promotes partnership between the Government and the Scottish Executive and between the two Parliaments. At the same time, the Secretary of State continues to represent Scottish interests in reserved matters within the UK Government, advising colleagues about any distinctive Scottish aspects that arise for reasons other than the impact on devolved matters and supporting them in presenting Government policies in Scotland.
"Jousting with the First Minister over the last two days" as Jim Murphy puts it himself, is hardly a solid start. Not in the Scottish Office's job description.
And another little beauty: "LIT is the biggest issue in Glenrothes". He may wish that to be the case, but I'm afraid, firstly, it's a Holyrood reserved matter which the victorious MP won't have a hand in one jot, and secondly, the biggest issue is the economy silly.
You've just landed Jim. Don't do a Cairns on the people of Scotland. Get in touch with the real issues, not manufactured ones. Help sort out RBS now before another Scottish Banking HQ is lost.
sm753
I think these words make it legal:
"..should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the UK.."
So it's Murphy playing games again. Accusing Salmond of "rigging" a referendum by using these words, when in fact Salmond is legally bound to use words such as these in any referendum question.
What would be illegal, would be the following:
I AGREE/DISAGREE that Scotland should become an independent state.
Holyrood has no legal authority to follow through with action based on a majority agreeing.
Thanks for that, Andrew.
Re. this part of his job description: to "promote the devolution settlement and to act as guardian of it", that's exactly what he's doing when he locks horns with those whose independence agenda is being promoted by their populist but ultimately vacuous policies.
Evening SU
I was really disappointed in Mr Murphy's opening salvos this week. A full-time SoS is a great opportunity for Scotland's voice to be louder in Westminster. It was also an opportunity for Labour to side with some of the good policies that have come out of Holyrood - Jim Murphy - recently acknowledged this fact.
Unfortunately it's SSDD.
Building any consensus in Scotland to improve the way the country is run, whether in or out of the union is a mountainous task.
Andrew Bod,
There's no such thing as a "Holyrood reserved matter" - Holyrood cannot reserve anything, and the UK Parliament and government can do anything they wish. As for Local Income Tax, there is a growing body of opinion that the SNP's plans for it are illegal insofar as they effectively constitute a Scotland-wide tax rather than a local one.
Indy,
Just because you believe something is flawed does not mean that you believe there are alternatives to achieve the same end. It doesn't mean the Secretary of State believes that the Scottish Parliament can hold a referendum on independence, it just means that he doesn't support a referendum asking the question the SNP propose. Perhaps it may mean he doesn't believe there is a fair question that the Scottish Parliament can propose in a referendum - so what?
Dg - no the point is that he queried why the SNP propose to hold a consultative referendum rather than a referendum on independence itself.
These issues, and the reasons why the Scottish Parliament can only hold a consultative referendum, have been thrashed out ad nauseum over the past number of years. So has he not been paying attention?
Indy
"he queried why the SNP propose to hold a consultative referendum rather than a referendum on independence itself."
Balderdash. There is nothing "consultative" about the proposed question.
"negotiate a SETTLEMENT... ...SO THAT Scotland becomes an independent state."
There is nothing tentative or "consultative" about that. If they wanted a consultative question, they could have chosen one. For example:
"negotiate a PROPOSAL... ...on the basis of which Scotland COULD become an independent state."
The proposed question is fraudulent kidology.
As a result, the Unionist parties (or private individuals) are free to:
- challenge the legality of the proposed question;
- accept its legality but change the wording to something more extreme ("...so that Scotland becomes an isolated pariah state where fear and famine stalk the land", etc)
- accept its legality but change the wording to build in a double-lock, e.g. "subject to a further referendum."
Lots of possibilities, the question is which is tbe best tactic.
What does everyone make of Murphy's blog? (other that the fact that he needs an RSS feed)
Interesting little snippet by Torcuil Crichton on his Herald blog:
“An early test of this new detente will be the Secretary of State's blog which he will maintain on the Scotland Office website - a brave move considering how top blogging Minister Tom Harris was dropped last week. The fact that the blog will be open to comments will no doubt delight the Pantone 300 ink brigade who have raised the poison pen letter into a digital art form on this and other newspaper sites.
“I've got my approach, they might have another,” said Mr Murphy. That we don't doubt.”
It made me smile, anyway!