I admit to being actually shocked when I heard Labour had changed their stance on an independence referendum. Even more bizarre is that Labour are pushing to have it sooner than the SNP are.
And yet, there is a method to yet more madness from the Labour party.
Polls on the independence question are showing a slow but unmistakable climb in favour of a "yes" vote.
Wendy was going to look like a fearty if she didn't accept the SNP's bill on an independence referendum and Alex could have used the unionist intransigence as a campaiging tool going into May 2011's election.
So she had to do something. And her best bet, quite reasonably, is to have the blasted vote as soon as possible, confident that the Scottish people will be too scared to vote yes.
This throws up an interesting scenario though. Alex and Nicola want to have the vote in 2010 and Wendy wants to have the vote in 2009.
So, Wendy may well produce a bill this year which is voted down by the Tories and Lib Dems and, incredibly, by the SNP as it doesn't fit their timing.
Then, the following year, the SNP will put the finishing touches to THEIR bill and bring it in front of the parliament. The Tories and Lib Dems will take the same stance as always and Labour, quite fairly, will vote no in retaliation to the SNP's own no vote the year before.
Are you with me so far?
So basically, we could have the two largest parties clamouring for an independence vote and we, the poor Scottish public, being empty-handed nonetheless!
Merkel, the great Eurosceptic
2 minutes ago
8 comments:
Jeff,
I think that's a good analysis of where we are - we do indeed inhabit a strange world.
However I cannot see any reasonable way that the SNP can vote against a referendum. Bearing in mind that most people in Scotland do not closely follow the nuances of constitutional debate I think it would seem perverse to them for the SNP to say no to a referendum.
If the SNP do vote it down in 2009 but bring forward their own bill the following year (which is then rejected) this will limit the SNP's ability to complain that the people of Scotland are being denied their say.
Sometimes in politics (especially when in government) you just have to accept that the opposition can force you into an inescapable position; I think this is one of those situations.
I fully agree that that is the best course of action, for the SNP to vote yes to any such bills that come their way. But then, the SNP have more accurate polling data than we do, if there is NO CHANCE of victory in 2009 and a SLIM CHANCE in 2010, then they may well delay and try to get their wish later rather than sooner.
But you're right, I can't in all honesty see the SNP voting down an independence referendum. They are certainly the most tactically astute of all the parties in the chamber.
I can only hope Wendy can't bring herself to write a bill on the topic...!
2010 would be better than 2009.
It would definitely put the SNP in a rather awkward position IF Labour put forward a referendum, and IF Labour all voted for it.
Two big 'if's there. BUT...
2009 wouldn't be out with the SNP's plan too much. Independence is rising in popularity every day; some polls already put it at +40%. If a few "don't know's" put down yes too, and the "silent majority" do actually vote in favour of it when they come out to vote (which normally they don't, hence why they don't poll very well) then who knows what the count would be.
To be honest though, timing isn't the issue here, wording is.
the SNP need to table that Bill ASAP. Labour can't vote no on it now without looking total idiots..
OK, without looking even more like total idiots.
That way the SNP can set the wording to something reasonable like "Do you wish the Scottish Government to create a settlement with the UK Government that will lead to an independent Scottish nation?".
As opposed to the dross that Labour would have us vote on (if at all) like:
"Do you want he whole country to be ravaged by storms and floods and fire because we go begging, cap in hand to our Lords at Westminster for some sort of maybe independent Scotland like-place in a country like manner, maybe possibly, perhaps??".
OK, so I'm exaggerating but not much. Wording is key here. Some polls for independence put it as low as 19% due to wording. Again, others that have a clearer defined question have it up to 41%.
In the enxt couple of years I forese the SNP doing a lot of groundwork showig what would happen after independence, what it will cost, what the impacts would be. And also a lot more movement on getting the "hard" things passed in Parliament like Student debt and more police. Wendy's crew have been bleating the SNP haven't moved on these yet; so move, and then when Labour vote it down, say "heh, we tried, sorry you've still got £12,537 (in my case) of student loans", or "sorry there's not enough Police to cover your town tonite..you know who's to blame, don't you?".
At that point Labour's already slim chances of re-election plummet, and the likelyhood of the People trusting the SNP to run a true Nation, not a County-Council becomes ever more possible....
On STV for Local Government the LibDems voted down an SNP bill which would have brought it in for 2003 and then brought forward their own one for introduction in 2007.
One referendum bill may be very different to another. Look at the situation in Northern Ireland in the 70s where the nationalist and republican communities boycotted a referendum on irish unification brought forwatrd by brit unionists on various grounds including the nature of the question asked.
Do you think the referendum is within the legislative competence of the Parliament? I ask given the presiding officer's legal team rejecting the bill last session that would have abolished the right of appeal to the House of Lords in civil cases (a matter which was generally assumed to be devolved) using the constitutional reservation. If the same team is there any bill - whatever its source - may be rejected as incompetent for the Parliament to consider - which would be a tactical own goal for Labour (who will need to look into this very carefully) and play into Salmond's hands.
It's a valid point but if both Labour and the SNP want a Scottish referendum to take place, I'm sure they'll be capable enough to find a way to make it happen.
On newsnight last night, Wendy Alexander, seemed very vague and non-committal on whether and when Labour will bring forward their referendum bill. Indeed she didn't commit on when Labour did actually want to have a referendum, but rather was concentrating on the SNP's proposals and that they would not be an appropriate time to hold a referendum eg. parliamentary procedure wouldn't allow enough time to scrutinise, it would be too close to an election etc. etc,
My view is, I still don't believe that Wendy Alexander and Labour will either bring forward their own referendum bill or vote for the bill to be brought forward by the SNP. What she will do however is not vote down an SNP Bill as such, but try and block it by other means, i.e. using the excuse that parliament is running out of time etc. etc. She would eventually vote it down, but on the basis that the people hadn't been properly informed, that the bill hadn't been properly scrutinised by parliament etc. etc. She could argue that she tried to give the Scottish people a say, and believed in their right to a referendum in principle, but the SNP's proposals, brought forward so late in the term of parliament made it impossible for her to vote for them. That would try and counter any argument Alex Salmond would have that the Labour party had denied the people a say and didn't trust them in a referendum in the 2011 elections.
This is a dangerous game however, as the SNP could bring their bill forward early and force her to back it, or the people could see through this tactic and see "lack of parliamentary scrutiny" as a feeble excuse, which would make labour look less principled.
The interesting thing will be how the SNP tactically react to this, whether they fear that this is a labour trap or whether Salmond tries to do some sort of deal with Labour, change his plans and bring the timetable forward on a referendum by 6 - 12 months. He may also have to compromise on wording. As other posters have noted above, wording could be key.
I could be wrong of course and maybe this a genuine attempt to give people a say, though I doubt it.
The mistake Wendy has made however was a couple of months ago (and I said so at the time as well). Alex Salmond had suggested a 3- way referendum by STV - there is much less chance that independence would win this. A 2-way question is another matter.
Because Wendy claimed how undemocratic it would be to have a 3-way STV vote and it was an outrage that Salmond suggested it she now had had to back a straight Yes-No question on independence, a position that would benefit independence supporters. It was good tactic by Salmond therefore by suggesting this 3-way referendum.
I still think we are some way off having a referendum, however, interesting time lie ahead.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,酒店,
Post a Comment