Friday, February 16, 2007

Lib Dems scupper independence referendum

From the Scotsman:
"NICOL Stephen declared yesterday that the Liberal Democrats would block a referendum on Scottish independence unless pro-separatist parties gained a majority at Holyrood - an extremely unlikely situation according to current polls."
I have mixed feelings about this. Nicol Stephens is right to suggest that it would be necessary for pro-independence parties to gain a majority in Holyrood for there to be a mandate for a referendum; the SNP being the largest party would be insufficient.

On the other hand, it might be an idea for them to have it anyway for the nationalists would surely lose and perhaps all this Braveheart shit could be put to bed for another decade or so.


Anonymous said...

"...the nationalists would surely lose..."

Well it depends on the terms of the referendum doesn't it.

If they're really talking about independence, they'd get my vote for sure.

But as they're probably talking about direct rule by Brussels instead of Westminster, well that's a different thing entirely.

Anonymous said...

"Put to bed for a decade or so", yes you can see what Tam Dalyell meant when he made his "Neverendum" comment.

Of course, as usual everybody is assuming that the decision is solely one for the Scots to decide, with us English having no say in either direction.

Let's face it, we didn't get a vote on the original devolution proposals either.

How's about this for a suggestion? Let the Scots have a referendum on retaining the Union - and let the ENGLISH have one also. It could be an interesting result...

Shuggy said...

Of course, as usual everybody is assuming that the decision is solely one for the Scots to decide, with us English having no say in either direction

Blether as usual, David. If Scots want to be independent from England, that is a matter for them. If the English want to be independent from Scotland, that's a matter for them. Good luck with the campaign but I think you'll find that most of your compatriots aren't as embittered as you. I may be wrong about this of course, in which case it's a sad situation.

Anonymous said...

Oh I agree it's a sad situation Shuggy. I originally got involved with Campaigning for an English Parliament because I thought that after devolution the Union was so badly imbalanced that it would break.

Since then I've heard everything from outright hostility when asking for simple equality for the English through to a gloating indifference that speaks volumes. And so in the past few days I've realised that the party is over. I presume sentimentality has kept me blind to the reality until now.

The other "Home" nations have only their own interests at heart. They aren't genuine Unionists seeking a common purpose and identity, they are merely interested in the Union for what they can get out of it for themselves.

And if our partners' attitude to the English ranges from indifference to outright hostility then they cannot be said to have our SHARED best interests at heart.

Which is why the Union is finished.

"Embittered"? Perhaps. I genuinely think it is a sad state of affairs. But we have to face the facts as they stand, and not as we would wish them to be.

Donald Maclean said...

'Braveheart Shit' aside, I'd like to live in a country that takes care of its own affairs. I have no hostility towards the English (they deserve home rule as well). I'm all for English and Scottish independence.

Gavin Ayling said...

I'm with Donald Maclean, if we (as nations) seem to want different things then it is surely easier and more civilised to go our separate ways?

Anonymous said...

Donald Maclean -

Blog Archive