In the 2007 Holyrood election, the SNP polled 32.9% of the constituency votes against Labour’s 32.1% — a difference of just 0.8%. But the regional votes, through which the SNP gained 26 of its 47 MSPs, were significantly more divergent, with the SNP polling 31.0% against Labour’s 29.2%.
The SNP’s tactic of listing itself as “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on the regional ballot, thereby distinguishing itself from the hordes of Scottish Whatever Parties, was identified by the Gould Report as one of the factors which led to voter confusion and voting errors.
Today’s Scotsman quotes the SNP’s John Mason — a frequent foot in mouth victim — admitting what we already knew: that his party’s electoral tactic in 2007 was “a bit naughty”.
Water under the bridge, of course. But if we fast forward, the SNP still seems to think that its desired ends justify such means, and worse: a constitutional referendum whose needlessly complex “negotiate a settlement” wording sanitises and muddies the issue to such an extent that the latest ICM poll suggested that 42% of people would vote for the SNP’s proposition, whereas only 28% would vote for independence if the question clearly set it against the other main constitutional options.
The other parties must stand firm in ensuring that the SNP cannot hold its rigged referendum.
Matt Qvortrup: Numpty....
29 minutes ago
Wardog: you're banned - remember?
Jim: Please could you post again without expletive? Sorry, but I'd prefer a U/PG rating here. Thanks.
(This comment will self-destruct shortly.)
Sure, and my apologies. Been reading too much Mr. Euginedes lately I think ;-)
So, do you reckon in this climate of confession and atonement regarding the election, will wee Dougie Alexander admit to being intergalactically stupid or will he just go with plain incompetent?
Thanks. I'll leave my opener in situ for the sake of context.
Unfortunately for your conspiracy theory SU the SNP’s suggested layout for the ballot paper is on the record.
“Having reviewed the focus group research commissioned by the Electoral Commission and released last week we support a single ballot paper with the following characteristics:
1. The registered political parties in alphabetical order in the regional vote with corresponding party candidates for the constituency on the same line of the ballot paper.
2. The party and candidate names on the left side of each half of the page and the voting box on the right. rather than in the centre as illustrated.
We believe this is would minimise the chance of electors accidental1y voting only once and reflects a more traditional ballot format.
3. The two halves of the page distinguished using colour. The white and colour option seems most effective.”
SNP submission on design of ballot paper 16 August 2006.
Had the SNP recommendations been followed it would not have been possible to have used Alex Salmond for First Minister – unless the party had changed the registered party name to that description, which they could not have done.
The reason Labour did not accept the SNP’s proposal is because they did not wish to be listed under their registered party name – The Labour Party. They wished to be listed as Scottish Labour because they thought the word Scottish would get them more votes.
Any ‘rigging’ that was done was therefore done entirely by Labour. If they did not spot the political advantage spotted and perfectly validly exploited by the SNP, that’s their look-out.
As for your constant girns about a ‘rigged’ referendum. You, as well as your readers, know perfectly well that the SNP is a minority government. That means that they cannot decide the wording of the question without the consent of the majority. If the unionist parties do not take the opportunity of deciding the wording of the question when the referendum bill comes before Parliament next year then they run the risk that a future SNP government, which can command a majority, will be able to word the question any damn way they please.
Re: the 'rigged' issue.
Whilst I admit the question's wording is not particularly clear, it is supposedly an attempt to prevent the referendum falling into ultra vires territory. The SNP are walking on a constitutional tightrope: was there to be a question of legality raised, the administrative and judicial hurdles to surmount would be enormous. Moreover, there are questions about how legal _any_ consultative referendum on the subject would be.
The obvious thing to do here is for the Unionist parties, should any ever consider voting for a referendum, to insist that it is a Westminster-run referendum giving a clear and straight question and fully reviewed by the Electoral Commission.
That notwithstanding, I am anti-referendum.
LC: I totally agree.
Indy: Change the record, eh? You're spinning in a locked groove.
The Rigged Referendum:
If we look at the Nats' own consultation document, we find this:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/13103747/7
"3. The competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum would depend on the precise proposition in the referendum Bill, or any adjustments made to the competence of the Parliament before the Bill is introduced. At present the constitution is reserved, but it is arguable that the scope of this reservation does not include the competence of the Scottish Government to embark on negotiations for independence with the United Kingdom Government."
The original has "negotiations" in bold, so that's clearly what they see as the wheeze to get round the "reserved powers" bit.
Fine.
Let's have a question which says:
"I agree that the Scottish Executive should negotiate the total, final and irrevocable secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom".
Or something similar.
You get the picture, and if it comes to it the Unionist parties ought to have a suitable question researched, focus-grouped and ready to vote through.
smee you have actually grasped the point - though your question is ineligible. No-one can negotiate anything which is total, final and irrevocable.
Nevertheless you appear to understand what Scottish Unionist does not.
The unionist parties at the present moment have the power to decide the question that is asked. Which makes all suggestions of 'rigging' referendums completely bogus.
Indy:
There’s a tremendous post this afternoon at the Irish blog Three Thousand Versts in which the author speaks of Gerry Adams’ “flimsy grasp of unionist thinking”, despite “his accumulated years of experience”.
You are confusing disagreement with misunderstanding. Adams does it all the time. Salmond too. It’s one of nationalism’s most glaring Achilles’ heels.
There is no such thing as 'unionist thinking' in Scotland, whatever may be the case in NI. There is no pan-unionist alliance.
You and smee have just illustrated that.
Ah, of course. Those of us who believe that our best interests are served within the United Kingdom are simply misguided. It isn't a legitimate or sustainable perspective. We'll see the light in due course.
I expected you to recoil from the Adams comparison, not exemplify it!
What are you talking about? I have never said that you are misguided.
I wonder if all this sparring is perhaps to distract from the point of your post - the SNP's 'rigged' referendum?
I have shown why the SNP cannot 'rig' the question in the referendum bill that will be laid before parliament next year, even if they wanted to.
I have also suggested that by refusing to engage with the referendum process now the unionist parties may lose the opportunity to decide the wording of the question at a later stage.
Smee addresses that point when he suggests that the Unionist parties ought to have a suitable question researched, focus-grouped and ready to vote through if that proves necessary.
Do you agree with smee's position or do you not?
Sorry Indy, how can a "settlement" NOT be "total, final and irrevocable"?
So why do you prefer the former to the latter?
Because it's been shown to skew the poll results?
Reading the consultation paper shows that the Nats think the word "negotiate" is the key one.
Therefore "settlement" and "total, final, irrevocable secession" are equally acceptable as far as the reserved power issue goes.
Heck, I'd probably accept "total" or "complete" "secession".
Got a problem with that?
If so, why?
Indy
I do apologise for coming back to this but:
"No-one can negotiate anything which is total, final and irrevocable. "
Ever hear of this legal concept - which of course is strangely relevant - called "divorce"?
It is indeed total, final and irrevocable.
If the divorcing parties ever do get back together, any re-marriage is treated as a new contract from scratch, not a resurrection of the old one.
You were saying?
Indy, I think you may find that SM is being facetious. But if not, he and I don't quite agree. No big deal. The so-called pan-unionist alliance doesn't require complete unanimity on every issue!
Indy: “There is no such thing as 'unionist thinking' in Scotland.”
I have to say: as misconceptions go, that one’s an absolute stoater! Do you think a clear majority of Scots are just born opposing independence from Britain? Are we somehow unionist by default, without any thought being involved?!
Indy
"I have shown why the SNP cannot 'rig' the question in the referendum bill that will be laid before parliament next year, even if they wanted to."
Sorry, how?
It has been and is rigged.
On the contrary, I have now given you a couple of alternative questions which meet the (apparently) key requirement that they contain the word "negotiate".
And you're trying to manufacture "Unionist splits" where there are none.
I see no need, purpose or sense in a referendum either. But if "events, dear boy" dictate otherwise, then it would only be prudent for the parties to have a plan B in their back pockets.
I suspect they will.
In response to SM, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
~*pauses to breathe*~
... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Indy, I'm embarrassed for you. Fresh from the indignity of trying to deflect attention from Salmond's blooper over the meeting with Diageo, you stumble into this.
Taken from Chapter Eight of Animal Farm:
>> About this time there occurred a strange incident which hardly anyone was able to understand. One night at about twelve o'clock there was a loud crash in the yard, and the animals rushed out of their stalls. It was a moonlit night. At the foot of the end wall of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written, there lay a ladder broken in two pieces. Squealer, temporarily stunned, was sprawling beside it, and near at hand there lay a lantern, a paint-brush, and an overturned pot of white paint.
The dogs immediately made a ring round Squealer, and escorted him back to the farmhouse as soon as he was able to walk. None of the animals could form any idea as to what this meant, except old Benjamin, who nodded his muzzle with a knowing air, and seemed to understand, but would say nothing.
>> But a few days later Muriel, reading over the Seven Commandments to herself, noticed that there was yet another of them which the animals had remembered wrong. They had thought the Fifth Commandment was "No animal shall drink alcohol," but there were two words that they had forgotten. Actually the Commandment read: "No animal shall drink alcohol TO EXCESS."
That's you that is.
Indeed, SM. And not only plan B, but plans C through whatever it takes. :-)
One question, do the pro-Union parties?
As a nationalist, I'd support something along the lines of sm's proposed question. Following a campaign that makes it clear exactly what the referendum is about, I doubt the wording will make much difference. It's best to have a question that leaves no room for ambiguity, so that any majority for independence couldn't be spun as a dim public having the wool pulled over their eyes by the evil geniuses of the SNP.
sm753.
Divorce is not really a good comparison becaue while in a legal sense it is final it is obviously not not in a practical sense irrevocable. Anyone who knows who Liz Taylor + Richard Burton are knows that.
It is a splitting hairs issue in a way but I wonder if you could find any other instance of an independence referendum which contains the word 'irrevocable' - I don't think you could.
Don't get me wrong - in practice I think it would be irrevocable but I don't think you could use that wording because it implies that you can bind future decision making, which obviously you can't.
If we look at the wording of the Montenegro referendum it simply said: 'Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with a full international and legal personality?'
Maybe we could take that as a starting point for Scotland, as long as Westminster agreed to be bound by the results.
SU yes in a manner of speaking I do think that people are born unionist by default, with no great thinking involved. We are born or we come to live in a country called Scotland which is a part of the UK. Most of us simply accept that because it is the way it is. Most people do not generally question such matters.
Some of us - a minority - have come to question that however and to believe that Scotland should be independent. That is still a minority view but one which is growing. The issue for unionists is that you now have to justify the Union. That is something that unionists have never really had to do because it was not under any kind of serious challenge till fairly recently. It means you must come up with a coherent position which is not simply about attacking the SNP or independence but putting forward a positive case for the Union. That is in fact the stated aim of your blog if I remember rightly but you don't really do it. Even a light reading shows that it is almost completely about attacking the SNP. The same can be said of many Opposition members - there are a few exceptions such as Annabelle Goldie but on the whole your cause is pretty badly served by those you rely on to defend it.
The other point I would make is that I believe you are wrong to assume that all 'unionist' politicians in Scotland are unionist by conviction and share any kind of philosophy or belief system. They are not. Some of them are - but a lot of them are in the Labour Party for example because that was the party you joined if you wanted to be a politician in Scotland. They are time servers, and they will bend with the wind.
>> If we look at the wording of the Montenegro referendum it simply said: 'Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with a full international and legal personality?'
It's a bit rich for an SNP supporter to cite approvingly indpendence of one of the FYR states: considering the recent memories of Serbian chauvenistic nationalism, meaning Montenegrans would not have needed a delicately worded question; considering Salmond's repugnant attitude towards Kosovar independence.
In fact, it's a bit disgusting.
>> Maybe we could take that as a starting point for Scotland, as long as Westminster agreed to be bound by the results.
That's right my boy! Instead of a tackling the subject, i.e. SNP political malfeasance, direct an irrelevent and unsubstantiated allegation against Westminster.
You are a bit of a hypocrite, ain't you?
Alec it is not for me or you to approve or disapprove of Montenegrin independence - it is for the people of Montengro to decide that. And they did. They decided they wanted to be independent and they took that decision by a referendum.
If Westminster agreed to hold a binding referendum on independence for Scotland the whole issue of having to phrase it within the constraints of the Scotland Act becomes moot.
If you guys want to remove all references to negotiations then that's how to do it.
Alternatively I suppose the EU could oversee it as they did with Montenegro - that would also ensure that there could be no allegations of 'malfeasance' on either side so maybe that is the way we should be going.
Indy
"Divorce is not really a good comparison becaue while in a legal sense it is final it is obviously not not in a practical sense irrevocable. Anyone who knows who Liz Taylor + Richard Burton are knows that."
Yes, divorce IS a perfect comparison.
Burton & Taylor didn't get "un-divorced" - they couldn't because divorces ARE irrevocable.
They got "re-married" - and in legal terms their second marriage was as much a new contract as their first.
OK?
>> Alec it is not for me or you to approve or disapprove of Montenegrin independence
Jabbus pupping Whist, Indy, you cannot write for toffee. You just referred to the Montenegran vote in *approval*! Fair enough to bring in third party events, but you can't really cry foul when others pursue the angle.
>> it is for the people of Montengro to decide that.
As I said, you're a bit of hypocrite. A post-modern hypocrite who thinks words can mean whatever he wishes them to. When one lie is caught out, you lie and lie and lie again.
Salmond most certainly did not approve of Kosovar independence, or even the right of Kosovars not to be killed. He came out in favour of the status quo ante after tens of thousands of racist murders in the FYR, got that?
The FYR was torn apart through the pursuit of a 'national myth', and we see you and other Snuppies blathering and generally speaking complete hogwash about a Scottish national myth. We see the oleganious Salmond having the sheer brass-neck to claim to be Muslim-friendly *now* in his encouragement of the odious Saeed.
Indy, you are a disgrace.
sm753 I can't actually believe I am having this conversation but: The Oxford English dictionary defines'irrevocable' as meaning 'not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered'.
Burton and Taylor got married, then they got divorced, then they got married again, then they got divorced again. That suggests a relationship which was able to be changed, fairly frequently.
Now you can certainly argue that each divorce was final and not able to be changed but their decision to separate the first time was able to be changed as they got married again.
In the same way if Scotland votes to become independent then that change will be final - we could not undo it - but equally it does not mean that the position cannot change. It is not likely to change but that is not the same thing.
Nothing is impossible to change because we are only ever living in one period of time and cannot predict the future or bind our successors.
Divorce - yawn! Indy's 10:29 post is quite interesting. Hint hint! (Deep breath, folks.)
Alec everyone can read for themselves what I said about Montenegro and I have said absolutely nothing about Kosovo.
What this conversation is about is the wording of the question in a referendum on independence. Since SU and smee object to the wording that the SNP propose I have suggested the wording of the Montenegro question as an alternative - or a starting off point at least.
Your contribution to the discussion has been so wildly off topic that I can only suppose it is deliberate for some purpose only known to you.
>> Nothing is impossible to change because we are only ever living in one period of time and cannot predict the future or bind our successors.
Enough of the pseudo-mystical twaddle; the break-up of the FYR, never mind the events of the last century, show clearly the dangers of not putting constraints on human imagination.
Nothing is impossible. Human imagination is limitless. Christ in Heaven, it's limitless.
Indy: Such wording would be ultra vires and would very obviously fail Electoral Commission criteria. Next suggestion?
>> Alec everyone can read for themselves what I said about Montenegro and I have said absolutely nothing about Kosovo.
Jawwus rupping Mist! You cannot help yourself, can you?
Cast your mind back to the 1990s... are you aware that Montenegro and Kosova were part of the same political entity? One which, considering the fates of tens of thousands of Bosniaks and others as well as the intended fates of Kosovars, the Montenegrans could be forgiven for having clouded their views of continued union with Serbia?
Did you know that, in 1999, large numbers of Kosovars were pursued into Montenegro and many killed by Serbian irredentist nationalists?
Stopping this was an "unpardonable folly", in the words of the Fish-heid. That is a disgusting view, and anyone who defends it is defending a disgusting view. Capisce?
Now, acquaint yourself - if you have not done so already - with the title story. It concerns the your party's trick of associating a vote for the SNP with one man, i.e. Salmond. This is a Blairite cult of personality, which intertwines the two.
Salmond = SNP ~*AND *~ SNP = Salmond.
Thus, neither one can be discussed without reference to t'other.
You were saying?
SU: what wording?
Alec there is nothing mystical in saying that any constitutional settlement cannot be irrevocable.
The Treaty of Union of 1707 was not irrevocable and neither would any subsequent constitutional settlement be.
Salmond did not support Milosovic, he condemened the use of force (i.e. the bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo war) to stop Milosovic and co. He was still for non-military sanctions against the Serbs and called Milosovic a thug.
Apart from that, I do not recall Salmond having a position of being for or against Kosovan independence.
It a bit like saying that anyone who is against nuclear weapons would have been/was pro-Japanese during World War II.
As for the Montenegrans, the main reasons for wanting independence were:
a) Historical greivance over the way that Montenegro became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes i.e the Podgorica Assembly
b) Continued association with Serbia meant they were subject to the same sanctions for not handing over suspects etc and it impeded their route to EU membership.
c) The Dinar was useless and so Montenegro was forced to adopt the Euro whilst still in union with Serbia which created the inevitable problems.
d) The Serbs reacted to international hostility by putting visas against practically everyone. This damaged the tourism economy of Montenegro. In the last years the two republics had different border policies with a policed internal border.
The Montenegro wording. It's loaded. You might like to familiarise yourself with the question assessment guidelines.
SU I am aware of those guidelines - in fact you may recall ages ago that I actually pointed out that the EC would have to approve the wording. I also agree that they would not approve that wording, and neither would I in fact.
Nevertheless that wording is the closest thing we have to a precedent and so I still suggest it can be seen as a starting-off point.
Actually, I would hope that Balkan countries wouldn't provide any kind of precedent.
Why can't you see the writing on the wall? If there is to be any kind of constitutional referendum within the next few years it won't be arranged from Holyrood.
A precedent in terms of the wording.Since the EU organised the referendum we can assume they signed off the wording which therefore makes it acceptable I would have thought.
However it does not matter greatly - and I am quite happy for Westminster to legislate for the referendum.
Indy, there are liars and there are bullshitters. A common-garden liar wishes to be thought of as truthfull, so makes the effort to spin a consistent falsehood.
A bullshitter doesn't care, and piles on the lies without regard to consistency. You, Indy, are a bullshitter.
I was not responding to your brain-farts over constitutional settlements: SM has done that masterfully. I was responding specifically to your statement "Nothing is impossible to change [...]".
Try some close-reading.
Same goes for you, Abby. I stated that Salmond supported the status quo ante, despite it being well-known what carnage Milosevic had already wrought on FYR and four years after Srebrenica.
The NATO-led bombing of 1995 had halted Serbian irredendist nationalism as it should have done years before. Yet, Milosevic was intending to do it again in Kosova. Don't give me any crap about Salmond salving his conscience with appeals for non-military sanctions.
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED!!! Thousands more racist killings would have taken place, and anyone who believes that the Kosovars were second-class citizens who should have submitted to a Westphalian fetish to maintain some lines on a map - just as the Bosniaks were deemed to be - is either an imbecile or moral pervert.
Which are you?
>> It a bit like saying that anyone who is against nuclear weapons would have been/was pro-Japanese during World War II.
Only if by "a bit", you mean it's nothing like that. Salmond opposed military action *there* *and* *then*. Opposition to Trident in 2009 has absolutely no bearing on an event 64 years ago.
It's a bit like saying anyone who opposed the dropping of the A-bombs would have willingly sacrificed hundreds of thousands more GIs, and fulfilled the desire of a bunch of national socialists who'd already used chemical, biological and radioactive weraponry against millions of Chinese and Koreans to send millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians to their deaths.
Which they would have been.
Eck
?
Alec I think you need help.