To ask all Scottish MNrs to work together 2

[siiiiiiiiigh]

Sorry, filled the last thread with this, thought I'd better be part of Team Scottish MN and work together for those of us on the old thread...

Here's Armando's thoughts. I vote him in for everything.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/scottish-referendum-massive-voter-turnout-means-politics-changed-for-ever

I'm glad this thread made it through the night

Can pp tell me what's wrong with a federal system? Why can't England be split into regions for one tier of govt, so North East, North West, West Midlands or a multi-city region as some pp in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds seem to be suggesting?

Also, as a Scot, where is the leadership up here now? I want a devo team set up, somewhere we can direct our opinions, wishes and fears re. devolution.

Labour are too busy climbing out of the trap DC set for them, Lib Dems have zero credibility and forgive me, but I can't bring myself to put all my trust in the SNP just now

I suppose I am saying that the end doesn't always justify the means.

Who decides at any given moment that a sufficiently large chunk of the population wants a referendum?

Ummm... The electorate? If part of a parties manifesto is pushing for a referendum, and that party gains a majority in a parliament designed to prevent majorities, that's a fairly good indication... Democracy in action...

And suppose that ends up with a 60% No vote, can he then decide on 1st November that, goodness me, a large chunk of the population wants referendum no. 3?

If a government held a referendum on the same thing every week they would likely piss off the electorate, and not be voted in again. Hence unlikely to happen. Democracy again you see.

And, of course, it wouldn't be restricted to independence. You would get people clamouring for referenda on capital punishment, immigration, banking control, hunting, corporal punishment in schools, abolishing gay rights, enforced church attendance, you name it. The country would be paralysed by virtue of the fact that we were constantly trotting off to the polls, and every time someone in power didn't like a result they could simply decide to rerun the referendum.

See above answers. But yes, if a majority government is elected on the basis they will run a referendum on one/some/all of the above of course the referendum should run.

You really don't get democracy do you.

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Scotland does suddenly seem a little lost I'd agree whatwouldfreddiedo. It is coming to something when the Scottish conservative leader seems like the most effective! I'm comparing to salmond at the moment who seems to have slightly lost focus on his role as fm, Lamont who is just... Bleurgh and the lib dems who have no get up and go.,

Sorry wigglybeezer, but I'm kind of struggling with the idea that someone would vote for a party that was set up to achieve independence, had holding a referendum for independence on the manifesto complaining that they then held a referendum for independence...what did you think they would do?

ItsAll my only comment on another referendum is that it needs to be clearly spelled out in the SNP's manifesto, so then people know what they're voting for.

It would put off thousands of hesitant Yes voters.

Far better for all Scottish politicians to be seen to try to work together. I'd have a lot more respect for the lot of them.

tabula thousands of people voted SNP without giving the idea of a referendum much thought. It was seen I think as 'yes, well of course they have that in their referendum, but it's just not going to happen'

Then DC bounced AS into it, so it did.

But the underlying disenchantment with the other parties remains, but now there's nowhere obvious to channel that - I can't think who I will vote for in the GE.

Also, a lot of casual snp voters will think that, following salmond's declaration that the referendum was a once in a generation event, the issue has been put to bed. They may vote snp unaware of the threat of a neverendum.

They can't all read mumsnet and be as politically aware as we are .

There's a Daily Mash article doing the rounds at the moment - "Scotland to be covered in tinfoil" (can't link as I'm on my phone but Google and you'll find it). In other circumstances I might laugh..

See I'm actually not an SNP voter...because I'm not keen on some of their other stuff, I'm just struggling with the idea that people actually vote for parties without wanting their main reason for existing to happen...I mean I wouldn't vote green and then complain when they actually started implementing their environmental policies?

Anyway, no, I'm a bit unsure how to vote in the GE as well.

I'm struggling with who to vote for as well.

I'm not complaining that they held a referendum, although I wanted Devo Max on the ballot ( and I am sure the more gradualist wing of the SNP would have as well ). I am complaining about some Yes voters not accepting the result and wanting another one sooner rather than later.

The concept that a vote for the SNP in the next election equates to a vote for a referendum is insulting both to the SNP and the electorate. It could only be an unequivocal mandate for a referendum if that were in effect the SNP's only policy, and frankly the SNP is not going to be daft enough to do that because it's just been demonstrated to them that 55% of the population would be actively put off by that; in fact, they would also put off a hefty section of the 45% who have no wish to see all that money and effort wasted because someone vaguely hopes they might get the result they want.

The very fact that people are seriously putting this forward demonstrates that, unfortunately, some Yes campaigners are continuing to be as vague and unrealistic as they were before the vote. The fact that this extends to people at the top of the SNP hierarchy is incredibly worrying.

tabula unfortunately people did vote SNP without paying that much attention to the issue of a referendum. I don't recall them making a big thing of it. It was more "we are the party who will do the best for Scotland"

I'm not 100% sure I even knew before the last election that it was in their manifesto. I would never vote for them in any circumstances. My vote since the inception of Holyrood has always been chosen on the basis of who is most likely to defeat the SNP rather than anything positive.

Once they were in power there was a sort of phony war when they wouldn't say if or when they would hold it.

The Daily Mash article - www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/scotland-to-be-covered-in-tinfoil-2014092390921

I have voted SNP, but there has always been an element of compromise about it, there is an element of greenwash about their environmental policies that I find dubious.

It wasn't the SNP who didn't want devo max on the ballot, to be fair to them.

It's only been days, some of those yes people have been working their entire lives for independence...they're upset and angry, especially because it seemed like it might be a possibility.

I think if it you wait a while for the dust to settle, the wanting another referendum straight away will die down a bit, because most people on both sides have had enough.

Frankly I find more sense in the Daily Mash than in many other places atm

Well hopefully WM will deliver devo-max by 2016, so the question won't arise

If I am honest I think I might have been Ok with independence if currency sharing and automatic EU entry had been available but when it became clear that it wasn't I hesitated due to economic concerns and when I really thought about things intensively I came to the conclusion that I valued enough about our relationship with the rest of Britain not to go for a clean break.

It is going to be complicated working out how to vote in the next election.

I think other countries who are used to referendums and multi party coalitions probably cope with cooperating and compromising with pragmatism but it is a bit unfamiliar here, maybe we will get used to it.

Re the devo max...

I originally agreed with the opinion that it was left off the ballot because that probably would have gone through and without it it would be a stronger no, then there was panic when it was so split in polls.

It occurred to me last night that with a second paper, the vote would have been more split, people wouldn't feel so divided from each other and the atmosphere would have been so much better.

What if it was on purpose? What if actually they've got us all fighting amongst ourselves while they do something sneaky?

Ok, I am joking and not paranoid. But I'm actually quite sad today that there weren't more options purely because I think it would have made the run up to and the aftermath a lot less divisive.

I love that daily mash link, very funny. I'm having to sit on my hands to stop myself posting it on FBas I said I wasn't going to post any other referendum stuff on FB.

Tabular, that's exactly what my friend and I were saying. Divide and conquer, that was the aim .

If the perfect political party existed for Scotland,what would their policies be?

Even if we cherry picked the bits we liked from the current parties and packaged them as a new party?

I don't think it's paranoid to think DC's insistence on a Yes/No ballot was well thought through - that's how they play politics.

The primary reason was to avoid splitting the No vote, and to put AS on the spot.

But the Conservatives/WM would have been well aware that, whichever way the vote went, the Yes/No ballot would split Scotland.