The follow-up to my last blog has happened, but not quite in the way I had anticipated. I’ve had one comment from Fourfolksache (see comments below and my reply) but a considerable number of email comments, some anonymously, some brief informal comments and some extended response from named individuals. The latter group, however, did not want to be identified, nor did they want their verbatim response to be quoted. I will, of course, respect their wishes to remain anonymous, but I will try to capture the essence of the points they made.
But first I must clear up a key misconception that emerged in the minds of some - at least I see it as a misconception, but I am happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
Many correspondents seem to believe that Scotland has already had an independence referendum, when in fact it has not. The one that will be held in the second half of this Scottish Parliamentary term will be the first Scottish independence referendum.
The confusion seems to exist over concepts of home rule and devolution. The Scottish 1979 referendum was an attempt to get support for the devolved assembly under the Scotland Act 1978. Known to Nationalists as the Rigged Referendum, it failed in its objective, despite having a 51.6% YES vote on a 63.8% turnout of the Scottish electorate, which didn’t meet the requirement of 40% of the electorate eligible to vote. A second devolution referendum was held in 1997, which endorsed devolution and the setting up of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.
It follows from this that criticisms of my analysis based on that assumption alone are invalid, since they ignore the fact that no option to leave the UK was included in either referendum, and this is the source of the problem when a third possibility in addition to IN or OUT is added, namely full fiscal autonomy.
All are agreed that a simple dual option on independence or remaining in the UK, presented as either as a YES/NO or two question ballot is the simplest. The nationalist all require a simple 51% majority vote – others require a higher percentage YES vote, or even a UK-wide vote.
All correspondents felt that my Option One methodology - my three option ballot - was either unfair because it permitted a minority of those voting to win the vote if they had the highest number of votes, or it was unfeasible because the unionists just would not accept such a methodology. The nationalist tended to say “It would be nice, but it’s no gonnae happen!”
I agree – I simply put it up as a straw man to illustrate some of the difficulties of any methodology in addressing the overlapping objectives of part of the electorate.
The only criticism – so far – of Option Two is that the options can all go on the one ballot paper. This is true – the reason I suggested two ballot papers is to point up the fact the the result of each ballot stands alone. No one has yet offered any alternative that meets the problems that can arise over certain outcomes that I have identified. That, of course, doesn’t mean there are none …
A more general point, which I understand, is that I am over-complicating what must be a simple exercise and straightforward choices for the voter. All I can say is that every balloting and voting system in underpinned by complex planning and core assumptions that attempt to envisage and anticipate problems that may arise, and these are largely invisible to the voter.
When I press a button on my radio or TV, or a key on my computer, I do not want to know all of the complexities that lies behind it. All I want is a truthful outcome from a simple action.
Given the shambles that has resulted in the very recent past in Scotland from voting systems and mechanisms, I don’t think I am being unreasonable in wanting to avoid a recurrence in this most crucial of ballots.
And of course, there’s aye the politics …
Check out Stephen Noons post
ReplyDeletePeter, if the ostracising and intimidation of SNP MPs in Westminster by unionist MPs; eg., see Pete Wishart surrounded by them in an ocean of empty green benches, or read what Winnie Ewing had to say about her experiences - was to continue, we should just pull up the tent-pegs, scream blue murder and simply quit the place.
ReplyDeleteThey've breached the Treaty of Union umpteen times - the Act of Right's been trashed - their Union coffers have been stacked up from Scotland's resources - when do we say enough's enough?
I used to scoff at calls for UDI - but it's beginning to look like it will have to be.
After all what is it, other than independence - but, in effect, an action that's forced under irreconcilable official grievances; abuse that the whole world should know about.
A Unilateral Declaration of Independence is coming closer!
We musn't let petty frustrations push us towards extreme statement, Barontorc. The Eilidh Whiteford incident actually strengthens our position, just as all the petty carping, bullying and general bad behaviour from Westminster and the Starkey's of this world has done.
ReplyDeleteUDI has a rather chequered history - remember Rhodesia and Ian Smith? When a country untilaterally secedes from a larger politcial entity - as opposed to establishing its independence legally and democratically - it is done in one of three ways - velvet revolution or violent revolution, or by seizing power by a coup.
The first option may succeed, as in say Slovenia, if the larger grouping either simply doesn't care, or is too preoccupied with other problems to oppose it. The second option only succeeds if a majority of the people find life utterly intolerable under the existing regime, e.g. Cuba or Libya, and are prepared to fight a bloody guerrilla war.
The third option leads inevitably to a military dictatorship, which is perceived as illegitimate by a significant proportion of its own people, by the state they seceded from, and usually by the world community.
None of the conditions for either a velvet revolution or a violent revolution exists in Scotland and the idea of a coup is a non-starter.
So let's stick with democracy, which has been succeeding pretty damned well under a great statesman's steady hand and clear vision.
I have little doubt that the Union has its agents provocateur in waiting, and would dearly love to find some incoherent but passionate young activist who could be discreetly supplied with the makings, (see Diomhair on the 1950's EIIR/pillar box debacle, and then used to set back the cause of nationalism for another 60 years.
Peter, of course you're right - but let's drop the "petty frustration" line, we're up against a leeching union machine, animated through an 'establishment with a compliant media'.
ReplyDeleteWe know that hearts and minds must be the way forward - but your last paragraph may be more to the point than we want to see and things need to happen to diffuse the frustrations and cynical tactics that are intent on causing problems.