It doesn't really matter if the suggested cost of an independence referendum of £12m is accurate or not, that figure is out in the open now and sounds rather high. For that reason, and several others that I will get to, the SNP needs to drop its plans for a 2010 referendum in order to keep ahead of the rest of the chasing pack at Holyrood by the country mile gap that they currently enjoy.
However, with the 30th of November only a few weeks away (the date when the Referendum Bill's white paper is to be unveiled), I don't envisage a change of heart from the SNP and as much as I believe we should have a referendum, it will be a political error to call for one now.
The dropping of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link is a vote loser. It was probably the right decision but it's still a vote loser. Labour has behaved atrociously with their 'ripped off Glasgow' campaign but the vox pops speak for themselves. The Glaswegians who hold a victim mentality (of which there are many) are falling for it and fell for it hook, line and sinker in Glasgow North East by-election particularly.
The cost of GARL would have been an extra £200m. The cost of the Commonwealth Games just went up by another £80m and it's still over 4 years away. The cost of the the National Conversation is inching closer to £1m. Salmond got a good going over for £400/month food calls. The enterprise budget was cut during a recession. Angus Robertson bought himself a tv for £1,119.
These money-related stories have a drip-drip effect on the public and there's only so much political capital any administration gets to spend, not to mention money. £12m is a luxury too far for an issue that people have neither the time, security nor the inclination to be interested in. £12m could open the floodgates on top of the above stories and see the SNP haemhorrhage support. With Jackie Baillie and Richard Baker waiting in the wings, I wouldn't be prepared to take the risk.
But there are two further crucial reasons why the referendum should be postponed until the 2011-2015 term:
(1) The SNP hasn't included the potential cost of a referendum in its draft budget. There's no greater example of how this is the wrong time to hold one than that, the purse strings can't even be stretched wide enough to squeeze in the Nationalist's number one policy.
(2) The SNP dropped its Local Income Tax plans because the party didn't have the votes to get it through Parliament. It is illogical to press on with with the proposed referendum in the face of fierce opposition. The same standard for LIT should apply.
Are we really facing the immediate prospect of constitutional change? Of course not. We could have been, maybe, a year or two ago when there was something in the air but the winds have changed and not only is the suggestion that Scotland could vote yes to independence fanciful, we've probably also gone beyond the point whereby the Nationalists would receive sympathy votes from the electorate who were denied a say.
It's not enough for the SNP to think they're right and to be perceived as wrong. If you're losing the media battle then it's best to play it safe and not hand out rope for the media to hang you with.
Despite the hefty suggested price tag of £12m, the calls for an independence referendum are beginning to look a little bit cheap.
There's no shame in dropping the plans, the recession was not the Scottish Government's doing and as much as the unionist parties would jeer and gloat, postponing the referendum will only make the SNP stronger, return more MSPs in 2011 and increase their chances of passing a new Bill next time around.
Salmond vs Trump
37 seconds ago
66 comments:
'we've probably also gone beyond the point whereby the Nationalists would receive sympathy votes from the electorate who were denied a say.'
Do you really think so? It's hard to know what less-politically interested citizens think but I thought fighting the 2011 election on: 'The other parties don't even allow you a say in your own country's future.' might work quite well...assuming that no huge scandal hits the SNP before then.
I think we have.
Don't get me wrong, there was definitely a big window when the SNP were in a win-win position but times are too tough and there's been a few too many bad stories for the SNP related to money.
We know the other parties are denying the people a say on a referendum. We don't need it spelled out with a parliamentary charade that is a foregone conclusion.
Why can't the SNP fight on "The other parties don't even allow you a say in your own country's future" as things stand?
"The dropping of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link is a vote loser"
Where's your evidence for that?
"If you're losing the media battle...."
I wonder why?
Could it be that alone in the western world, the Scottish Government can't even count on the support of a single domestic paper..... despite commanding a decent proportion of the electorate.
There is something very very wrong in Scotland and it's time the 'media' were challenged over their bias.
It is damaging democracy and if your reasoning is correct, it is preventing scots getting an entirely reasonable say on their future.
There has been no better time to hold a referendum, saying that the economy make sit not so is agreeing with Labour that the vote is 'rigged'.
How 'rigged' is to to wait for better times?
Now is the test, we start here.
I'm a gradualist Jeff but this for me is a step too far.
I'd much rather see a three question referendum be presented to parliament, let the other parties back down on their calman commitment.
This is a matter of principal, we can;t just choose independence when it suits the SNP or when the economy is good, the people must decide on this.
It wasn't that the dropping of the GARL was a vote loser. It was the way it was used by one political party to find a way of duffing up another party. Without that what would they have done?
I, as a voter want a referendum, I pay my taxes too. This is the best time to campaign for a better Scotland and rebuild it for the future.
Wardog,
I don't see the merit in a 3-way referendum. We'd have status quo as an option and we'd have full independence an option but what would the third option be? More powers? What would that mean? Would they all be listed out? Who would decide what they would be?
Furthermore, I don't see receiving powers on broadcasting and airguns as something that has to go to the public at a cost of £12m. We don't govern by referendum except for big-ticket issues. The 'third option', whatever it would be, is not a big-ticket issue.
So I just don't see 3 options as feasible. A referendum can only be yes/no on independence and pushing too hard for it now would backfire.
As for GARL being a vote loser. Assuming it's not vote-neutral, are you suggesting that dropping it was a vote winner?
Also, I think it's too easy to overstate the media bias in the country. The SNP form the Government and with that comes an extra level of scrutiny. That's as it should be.
It seems victim mentality applies in more quarters than I had anticipated ;)
Oh dear, the touch of unionists cry of 'can't think of constitutional matters when the country's in a mess' getting to you Jeff?
This is the time we ought to be debating our future - when the going is so rough. Scotland needs to be livened up politically and the unionists are doing their best to ensure that doesn't happen. That is their greatest fear - the Scots discussing the future.
No, the SNP have to stick to their guns. Even my tory friends say it would be bad for them if they dropped the policy now. It's far too late.
The paper has to be launched as planned.
Jeff, it would be exactly as per the 1997 referendum.
The 'more powers' question should simply refer to either Calman's proposals or the Steele Report.
Alternatively through the Conversation, the SNp would have every opportunity to define that question but better that it's based ona specific view from the opposition parties who are supposedly seeking additional powers.
Both proposals contain substantial financial powers beyond what we currently have and are entirely consistent with a referendum.
With regards to GARL, I don't see any evidence of it being a vote loser, the SNP share of the vote was up, Labour managed to get their core vote out, so what?
Labour have and will fail to explain how to pay for it in the current financial climate, the wider public see their push for the £500million tram as a completely hypocritical move.
The 'ripping of glasgow' only plays well with traditional labour voters and their own prejudices, all labour have succeeded in doing is showing their own very parochial heartland's to be focused on where people were born rather than what they can do.....
I dare say you could have painted Kerr as an 'aberdeen fan' and would have got the same reaction.
Finally, 'victim mentality', hardly, I appreciate your teasing but I'm being serious, there have been more times than I care to mention when I read papers like the beano....sorry I meant the Scotsman... and the story's read exactly like labour spin doctor scripts.
The SNP had no such good fortune when in opposition. I don't expect a paper to come out for the SNP, I expect fair and balanced reporting of the facts, sadly in Scotland that is few and far between.
Sorry Jeff, but I am with most of the others on this one.
It is important that the SNP press on and that the opposition parties are shown to have denied the Scots their referendum.
If the SNP don't do that can't you just imagine Labour in particular immediately turning round and saying the SNP were too scared to go to the people.
Have you not got the measure of the hypocrisy of the unionists yet-especially Labour?
I note that noone has tackled the detailed points that it's (foolishly?) not been costed in a very, very tight budget and the SNP will look a bit daft pushing for this and having it voted down when Local Income Tax was pulled early when facing the same fate...
Subrosa, I agree the UK being in a mess is a very strong argument for independence, particularly when the Eurozone is now out of recession and we're not.
I think it will be just as strong, if not stronger, in 2012 when we're growing GDP at 3%+ and employment is looking rosier.
The SNP will have seen to have helped fix the economy (Cameron's Tories won't get much Scottish praise) but even that is beside the point.
Even if Nov 2010 was a preferable date, it would still be foolish to press ahead when there's no money in the bank, the £12m cost isn't in the budget and there aren't close to enough votes.
I might be wrong on this one Jeff, but I'm pretty sure Labour are going into the Westminster election with a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum on electoral reform.
Dave Cameron wants to make it law that there needs to be a referendum every time that Brussels asks a UK goverment minister to sign a document.
And, of course, the Lib Dems want an 'in our out' referendum on the EU.
I don't see how any of these parties could complain about the cost of a referendum with a straight face.
Sean, that could be a fine point indeed. I'm not sure myself but I think Labour is only flirting with the idea, Ben Bradshaw being the only Minister who has come out strongly in favour of it being a policy.
Similarly, the Lib Dems want an in/out EU referendum? That's news to me.
I just think SNP is at its strongest on domestic policies but until Council Tax is replaced, until Scottish Futures Trust is up and running and until energy policy is sorted beyond reproach, there is too much unfinished business for it to be the right time to put the question to the people.
JPJ2,
Labour's hypocritical jeers will be easier to see through if the SNP back out. If the SNP presses on, those same jeers will have some substance.
It's a lose-lose anyway.
If the SNP gets the Bill through then they'll have to cut £12m of frontline services on a referendum that, if they don't win, will hurt them very badly in 2011.
If the SNP doesn't get the Bill through then they'll be seen by most to have wasted a lot of time and money on something they have been explicity told by all 3 main parties that isn't going to happen.
And with Swinney not even including it in his budget, the SNP can hardly act surprised when it doesn't get its way.
Needless to say, they will get relentlessly pummelled in the press.
Why risk a massive lead in the polls on something so risky and when 2012 is not only a dead cert for the Lib Dems agreeing to a referendum but probably a period when the SNP can expect greater support on independence itself?
The strategy was fine 3 years ago but Salmond has to roll with the punches and I fear he's not adapting to events nimbly enough.
Get back to basics I say...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8280842.stm
That's the link to the PM pledging the referendum, Jeff.
As far as the Lib Dems go, I may have got ahead of myself as I'm not sure if its actually their policy now, but you'll remember the way the flounced out of the Lisbon debate because they couldn't get their way on the in/out question.
Fair enough Sean, point taken. You may even be right on the Lib Dems too, I'm just not aware of such a policy.
I still think the SNP would lose the battle though.
It's not enough to be right, it's how you're perceived by the public that matters and I reckon there would be a negative perception from the public if the SNP flogged a clearly dead horse for too long on their dime.
One could also argue that once the debate gets to 'the other parties want referendums too' then the SNP has already lost.
Jeff, I, increasingly, agree with your point about public perception.
But, think about how the public would perceive dropping the referendum bill.
You've argued your whole political life in favour of a referendum. You have spent the last two years talking about a referendum up and down the country in the National Converation. You've pointed to opinion polls showing anywhere between 60 and 80 percent of Scots want a referendum...and then you drop it.
The First Minister would be a laughing stock.
Imagine the reaction. Imagine the front page of the Daily Record and the Sun, at least one of whom would no doubt have a mock up of the First Minister as the cowardly lion from the Wizard of Oz. Imagine the sneering articles over at the Steamie and from that strange guy with the beard that works for the Telegraph.
Imagine Reporting Scotland, with all those clips of the FM telling various Labour leaders how much we need a referendum, and of the FM pointing out to Wendy Alexander, time and time again, that the SNP policy was to have in 2010. Not 2008 or 2009 like she offered. It had to be 2010 because it was in our manifesto.
Glenn Campbell would be on the politics show on the Sunday asking Mike Russell if the First Minister had lost all credibility on the issue.
The first minister would be ridiculed. And if there's one thing Gordon Brown has taught us, it's that governments dont recover from ridicule.
Give up because of unionist sleaze no way.
You sight Salmond's food bill have you checked up on SoS £3900 for food plus petty cash dips every month, try get that into the mainstream media/blogs and show them as the guilty party.
"I think it's too easy to overstate the media bias in the country"
Yes quite
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics/BBC-apologises--to-SNP.5825364.jp
I simply don't agree that he would be a laughing stock I'm afraid Sean. Some newspapers and rival politicians might try to paint him as one but surely the vast majority of voters would see they didn't have the votes and fully appreciate the stance the SNP were taking?
The SNP dropped LIT and the party wasn't a laughing stock then. Indeed, they've done rather well since.
I do agree that Salmond can't wake up tomorrow and say 'sorry folks, mission aborted' so there is a theory vs practice issue at play.
But I really don't see the FM as being ridiculed, not in the public's eyes. The other parties would look daft for having a go at Salmond for following their suggestion and the arguments in favour of independence would be just as full-throated as before. Infact, the simple response from Salmond would be to get the question of whether other parties would support a 2012 referendum. If they say no then who is on the backfoot then?
If the plans for 2010 were dropped then all that would happen is Nationalists would stay Nationalists, Unionists would stay Unionists and the middle third would be impressed that the SNP aren't about independence at all costs and come what may, consequently buttering them up for 2011 and 2012.
Jeff
I think you have a point about the referendum, but they need to be cute in how this is handled.
Backing down to opposition demands would be perceived as weak.
Going ahead with a referendum whilst still in recession, with rising unemployment, would look blase and out-of -touch.
A third way needs to be found. A way which doesn't betray the centrepiece of the SNPs existence. Sticking to their beliefs and principles, but at the same time, taking account of the recession. Of course there's no guarantee that the SNP will form the next Government, and that would suggest that a postponement to a time when the weather and economic outlook are much better, but still within the life of this Parliament.
Although the economy is being described as desperate at the moment, there is a view that the middle classes are not feeling the pinch that much. In fact, with interest rates being held so low, disposable income is for a lot of people, pretty good. And that is being reflected in retail sales figures.
For most middle class people, mortgages and cars are the two biggest sources of expenditure, so when petrol gets to around £1.20 a litre (including the January VAT rise) and the bank interest rate rises by a couple of percent, that relative feel-good factor will be gone. Probably by the middle of next year.
I know I've gone off on a bit of an economic tangent, but I wanted to raise the question again of whether there's ever a good time for a referendum?
Am I Missing soemthing here?
Can;'t they still introduce the referendum bill and then argue over the date?
The two don't need to be tied.
The Lib Dems could win a concession from the SNP to bump it to 2012 on a three way question that includes their own fiscal autonomy preference.
3 options should be return rule to London, implement all calman proposals as per the unionist parties and independemce as per the SNP.
it would be very hard for the unionist parties to campaign for London rule or to be against a policy that they claim to be 100% behind at least superficially and therefore supported.
the vote split on that poll would be 10% London rule, 50% calman and 40% independence.
at least this takes away the half pregnant stigma and people can change what we have now.
Jeff, if you look at Maddox's regurgitating of Gray's figures you'll see that Gray is throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the mix to try and bump up the cost. They include civil service salaries, the funds for taking the cabinet on summer tours to outlying areas and entirely relevant trips to brussels to flesh out European dimensions to Scotland's role in the UK.
It's complete nonsense.
Lack of facts doesn't prevent Maddox running a story, he's trying so very hard to become there next spin doctor.
Three questions will split the 'unionist' vote, it;s what AM2 was always frightened of, because he knows that substantial revenue / financial powers will be a bridge too far for the union as it stands.
They all know it.
By having control over finances, real change can be enacted and independence can easily be shown to work, the questions after that are simply about representation on the world stage.
AndrewBOD,
I take your point that there's always reasons why a particular time is not ideal for holding a referendum but that's somewhat beside the point. Even if 2010 was prefereable to 2012, it's still blatantly not going to happen.
Yes, life is going good for some of 'the middle class' but the SNP would still get hammered for wasting time and money in bringing this forward and, as I say, after GARL, after MPs expenses, after Col-gate, after increases in cost of trams, increases in cost of Comm Games, pressure to keep Council Tax frozen, it will look like an indulgence too far from the SNP Government and I honestly fear deeply damaging in the run up to the election 2011.
Why risk it when we all know the referendum won't even happen?
Wardog,
Yeah, I've tried to say alleged £12m as I've not read the story and only really seen the headlines so have no idea if that's the correct figure but, you know what, that's what hundreds of thousands of Scots will have done too.
Labour got it's attack in early and the pricetag of £12m will probably stick in the public's mind so it doesn't really matter if it's accurate or not. It's already out there and bickering over what costs should and shouldn't be included won't put the jack back in its box.
redcliffe62,
i'd be very surprised if the Lib Dems, Labour and Tories all agreed that the 3rd option should be "implement the Calman proposals in full".
I just don't see a workable 3-way referendum that a majority of MSPs could agree on.
In related news, Salmond is set to rewrite the referendum question.
http://tinyurl.com/ybjbg8a
If the SNP can cede enough ground to the unionists, then perhaps that could be a 'third way' solution that could work in winning sympathy and votes from an onlooking public.
If Scott or Gray object to certain things, Salmond makes the required amendments and they still object, then the SNP should win the battle.
Still risky though with that £12m unbudgeted price tag floating around and not much chance of Scotland voting 'yes'. If the pro-independence answer is still yes once Salmond's finished his redraft! ;)
Is it necessary to include a date for the referendum when the bill is published? Present the bill 'In Principle' and delay a decision on timing until the Cameroons have squeezed Scotland even further. Perhaps by then Scots will be more than happy for the opportunity to vote in favour.
Jeff, what price for a referendum on improving Scotland, is acceptable to you?
Monty,
The price is beside the point. If it costs £1m or £10m then so be it, it will be a price worth paying but only if it's what people want.
I just no longer get the impression that people want it at the current time and given that Swinney hasn't even budgeted for it he must know that deep down too.
The debate right now is about prudent financial management. The SNP is leaving itself wide open by pushing ahead with this now so close to the 2011 election.
It's not enough for Salmond to think he's right, the public has to agree with him. Right now I don't think it does.
Ianbeag,
a referendum in principle without a date attached sounds like a waste of time.
It's like a couple saying "we're engaged" but when asked when they're getting married they have no answer. What's the point? They're still just dating to all intents and purposes.
If we're going to agree on a referendum surely we have to agree on a date at the same time.
Voters in GNE didn't give a Friar Tuck about GARL.
It concerns me that people appear to be jumping to all sorts of wrong conclusions about the result.
Lets look again at what happened. All of the parties managed to get out their core vote but they did not manage to interest anybody else so most voters stayed at home.
Labour won because they turned their voters out and we did not manage to get any to switch to us. That's not surprising. In reality your hard core Labour voter is the most difficult voter to move for the SNP. We are much better at picking off progressive voters, whether for Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens or even Tories.
Unfortunately however GNE is not exactly hoaching with progressive voters.
We do need to think about a strategy for areas like Springburn and other areas of multiple deprivation in Scotland. But since most of Scotland - indeed most of Glasgow - does not have such a concentration of deprivation as in GNE it is not something we need to panic about.
Regarding the referendum. If we drop the referendum what is our Westminster campaign to be about? Personally I think this balance of power argument is weak - because the evidence suggests there is not going to be a balance of power to be held. Barring a miracle the Tories are going to win comfortably.
What then is the motivation to vote SNP? To have a strong voice to stand up to Westminster? Fair enough but dropping the independence referendum does not suggest a strong voice. It suggests a party on the back foot.
"a price worth paying but only if it's what people want."
Until the white paper is published, how will you know whether the people want it or not?
Honestly, to give credence to Maddox and Grey really does you a great disservice.
Put it this way, in the last year, the debate has moved on from one about whether we should have additional powers to one about the extent of those powers and how they should be implemented.
Calman and the National Conversation all point to the need for change, it's been twelve years since the 'Yes Yes v No No' referendum. Now when 'Britain is bust' is the right time to put the question to the people of Scotland on whether we should have Independence or enhanced devolution.
The comments on this issue here are really informative to read. I think Wardog makes the best case.
On the GARL issue might I suggest that the M74 completion will remove any urgency for a better rail link to the Airport. Its that bridge which is the problem. I'd be surprised if the specific issue mattered to people in Glasgow NE anyway. A constituency of 30% welfare dependants is unlikely to be concerned at the convenience of flying to their foreign holiday homes.
The first year or two of austerity which the incoming Tory administration will have to impose is perhaps the point of maximum impact for people seeking independence. And a world returning to growth with the anticipated surge in oil prices is perhaps our country's last best chance to get out of this mess. If we prevaricate much longer we are never going to escape.
£2-50 a head to decide your future? A pint? A Lunchtime special supper? Mere small change.
Jeff
In amongst all of this referendum debate, I think you've said something really important. Really simple but oh so important.
"Labour got it's attack in early and the pricetag of £12m will probably stick in the public's mind so it doesn't really matter if it's accurate or not."
- Willie Bain, 'local boy' - dubious, but it stuck
- Glasgow getting a poor deal - untrue, but it stuck
- £12M for a referendum - manufactured, but it stuck
Etc..
This is something which the SNP needs to learn to do better. Attack on the front foot. Defending an attack gets much less media coverage, and the damage has already been done. In fact, the SNP have already done this successfully with Wendy Alexander, and seem to forgotten their way a bit.
UK Labour's relative recent success against the Tories, and orchestrated by Mandelson, was exactly as described above, almost as if the UK Government was in opposition. Now I don't think for one minute that it will stop the Tories getting in next year, but it will reduce the amount of seats they could lose.
Get on the offensive, play Labour at their own game. Don't be afraid to mix Scottish/reserved policy. Attack Murphy: no-one else is doing it. Who is the Shadow Scottish secretary, likely to be in Murphy's shoes next year? Bring them into the fray. Are there any snippets of Labour Policy for their 2011 Holyrood election manifesto? Any leaks? Somebody must know something. Find out, look for the weaknesses and attack!
I think Duncan Hamilton puts it very well in his article in today's Scotchland on Sunday: "There are two things the SNP can do wrong at this point. The first is not to react to this result. The second, equally dangerous, is to overreact."
As for media bias - c'mon Jeff! Think back to the front pages of the two biggest selling papers in Scotland on election day in 2007. Wardog highlights the BBC having to apologise to the SNP yet again. At least they identified Alex Neil as a minister on that occasion, unlike Kirsty "Oi, Salmond!" Wark.
Independence is as important now as ever it was. Scotland needs control over its own economy to get us out of the quagmire the UK is stuck in. To back down in the aftermath of electoral disappointment, especially in an election for a different institution, would make it look like the SNP Government lacked the courage of its convictions.
Jeff - full marks to you for having the balls to raise this issue.
But whilst i agree with you that now is not a good time for an actual referendum, I think tactically it would be a big mistake for the first SNP Governemnt to abandon long held plans to introduce a referendum bill on 30 November.
It was a manifesto promise and it would be rightly preceived, both externally and internally as a sign of weakness by the SNP. And here I dont think your anology with the dropping LIT holds up. LIT is not a raison d'etre of the SNP, nor can you credibly claim there were any more than a handful of people who have ever voted SNP due to its commitment to LIT. But for very many, especially the core vote, to say nothing of the party members, independence is the raison d'etre.
And of course there is a big and difference between a referendum bill and an actual referendum - the symbolism of the first SNP adminstration introducing a bill to give the peopel fo scotland a vote on their constitutional future is I think important - if it were the only achievement of the adminstration it would still be a good one.
In the light of Glasgow North East where,"incumbancy" undoubtedly cost the SNP votes ( As did incumbancy in Fife Council in Glenrothes), the SNP needs to ask itself serious questions about why it is in government at any level. I am not advocating permanent opposition - indeed there are obvious advantages in power no matter how limited. But power brings pitfalls too and a party like the SNP needs to be constantly alert to them. "Governing" indeed winning elections, are not in themselves objectives
On the referendum bill, the SNP certainly needs to box clever in terms of parliamentary tactics. Introduce the bill, get an early first raeding vote on it and then when its inevitably defeated make sure yopu dont waste additional parliaentary time, and then spin the denial of democracy line as best you can - with the near immediate UK general election and Holyrood 2011 in mind.
And £12 million for a referendum - £2.20 a skull: How much did people think it would cost? How much will the UK GE cost, Euro election council elections?....if we are to go down, id rather lose on giving folks as say than on anything else.
But in the long run I dont think the SNP will lose by holding firm on 30 Nov
Indy,
I'm not saying the SNP lost Glasgow NE because of GARL but it did give Labour the excuse for the "ripped off Glasgow" campaign which, although erroneous, was arguably the second most important contributory factor to the SNP's loss behind Bain's local credentials.
So I agree with a lot of what you say on the reason for the loss but in many ways that's all beside the point with regards the independence referendum and whether Salmond should push on with it.
A strong voice for Scotland in Westminster is indeed the best strategy for the SNP, one that I still think can reap huge dividends.
But I worry that pressing too hard for this 2010 referendum that isn't high up on peoples' priority lists (as far as I can tell) could derail the party's chances of a 2nd term.
I also worry about the suggestion that a 'u-turn' on a 2010 referendum will be seen as weak and pushing on with it will be seen as strong.
Surely it takes more strength to realise that circumstances have changed, a policy is no longer appropriate and act accordingly.
The SNP pressing on with a 2010 referendum could arguably only be seen as "strong" in the macho, testosterone-fuelled view of the world where Politics comes down to who can shout the loudest and who can punch the hardest.
Everyone knows the Bill won't pass so what's wrong with Salmond making an offer of dropping the 2010 Bill if a party comes out in favour of a 2012 yes/no referendum, in principle?
Furthermore, if people get bored of an independence narrative that is patently going nowehere in the near future, who is going to face the backlash?
Monty,
Of course we'll only know what people want once we ask them but is there really a sense out there that Scottish people are burning to get this issue off their chest? Of course not, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous surely.
I think to constantly deride Maddox and Gray as the 'baddies' and the SNP as the 'goodies' does one more of a disservice than considering their views and giving credit where credit is due.
Of course there is bias in the press but it doesn't mean they are wrong on each and every occasion.
Also, if we are to have more powers then I don't think that needs to go to the people unless it includes full fiscal autonomy.
What would the precise wording of your third option be on "enhanced devolution" in this proposed referendum?
Steven,
I don't doubt the sincerity in the argument that independence is desperately needed but you're not addressing the facts that (1) the SNP clearly doesn't have the votes to pass the Bill, (2) if they did somehow pass the Bill Swinney hasn't budgeted for it so would need to find as much as £12m to pay for it, (3) whatever happens, the SNP will quite possibly be seen to have wasted a lot of time and money at the expense of frontline services/GARL/Comm Games, you name it.
As I've said before, it's not enough to be convinced that independence is right and this is the right time to vote on it, you have to convince the public and, I may be wrong, but they're not with you on this one so pushing on would come at a price.
Jeff, a very brave post, and bang on the money right now.
AWC, thanks and I hope you're right.
I don't think it's the Nationalists out there that the SNP need to worry about yet it's they the party seems to be placating in pushing on with a 2010 referendum.
After all, who else are fans of independence going to vote for in 2011, even if they don't get a Referendum Bill knocked back in the Parliament?
PS I don't think the symbolism is as important as you suggest but I am aware that I may be totally wrong on that.
And hey, isn't that like saying I might aswell have a shot from 40 yards out rather than trying to work the ball into the box because, you know, at least it's a shot on target.
celticoneoneAye We Can ! said...
Jeff - full marks to you for having the balls to raise this issue.
But whilst i agree with you that now is not a good time for an actual referendum, I think tactically it would be a big mistake for the first SNP Governemnt to abandon long held plans to introduce a referendum bill on 30 November.
It was a manifesto promise and it would be rightly preceived, both externally and internally as a sign of weakness by the SNP. And here I dont think your anology with the dropping LIT holds up. LIT is not a raison d'etre of the SNP, nor can you credibly claim there were any more than a handful of people who have ever voted SNP due to its commitment to LIT. But for very many, especially the core vote, to say nothing of the party members, independence is the raison d'etre
.........
I was Aye We Can then that is what I would had wrote.
Could you imagine Gray's mantra if the SNP were to ditch its referendum?
Sorry Jeff, I know your not that pro independence but even you should be able to see the sort of stuff that would come from Iain Gray if the SNP were to drop its referendum, the dull guy would milk it until his hair went blue.
Jeff, the £12million figures used by Gray includes money already spent.
It's probably much closer to £5Million maximum to actually run a referendum, possibly even cheaper if they ran it in conjunction with other elections.
Personally I think £1a head as put elsewhere in the blog is an excellent idea.
For the price of a bus ticket, we can decide on the future of this nation......
How much has afghanistan cost?
How much did Iraq cost?
How much will Trident Cost?
"As I've said before, it's not enough to be convinced that independence is right and this is the right time to vote on it, you have to convince the public and, I may be wrong, but they're not with you on this one so pushing on would come at a price."
Aren't you conflating holding a referendum with getting the result you want?
If Scots don't want independence then let then say so at the ballot box.
I don't here anyone complaining about having a General Election midway through a recession, why is a referendum any different?
Indeed, Labour are proposing to alos have an AV Referendum on the same day as the GE Elections.
Why is that different, what is it's cost?
Last one from me today (need to write a lecture!), I thought it was interesting that the herald's 'exclusive' was that the SNP were formulating a tax cut package for post independence referendum .
It';s what Margo Macdonald has been saying for ages now and the SNP are only really getting round too.
The referendum won't just be pitched as a standalone, a full picture of policy will be behind the option, setting out future of Scotland under any SNP Government.
We shouldn't forget that, it is about the principal of independence but more than that it's about the future of the nation and how we tackle the BIG issues of poverty, enterprise and wellbeing for our citizens.
We've all got a vague idea of what we want to see, but even the SNP haven't set out Crystal clear yet.
Jackie Stewart on the AM Show this morning gave a glimpse at what that unbridled Scotland could do, the aspiration to meet ALL of our children's needs.
Our offer of hope must be tempered with real and lasting policy detail, well thought out and carried through. We must demonstrate to people who've lost faith how they with support can change their lot.
Labour can't offer the same.
Jeff,
You speak of the victim mentality of many Glaswegians being the cause of the SNP not taking Glasgow NE.
It is the same victim mentality that the SNP have used and are using to justify Scottish Independence.
I have to say, whilst I'm not overly a fan of the SNP's referendum policy, I think your suggestion would be political suicide for the SNP. I do have to say though you are bang on the money - 2012/13 would probably be the optimum time for the SNP to hold a referendum - but that is what is likely to happen anyway.
The point is, the SNP don't need to do anything apart from introduce the bill, which hardly costs a great deal. The Unionist opposition parties are (seemingly) too stupid to realise this.
There is going to be no referendum in 2010 - more likely several years later, unless one of them performs a major U-turn. So the bill will be voted down. No referendum.
But is gives the SNP further momentum and extra time as well as legitimacy to outline the benefits of independence to Scots against the backdrop of of a changing government at Westminster, an upswing in the economy and austerity cuts in public expenditure imposed from Whitehall. And it also gives them a powerful racket to hit the Unionist parties with in the lead up to the 2011 election, which will certainly resonate.
FWIW I think all countries of the United Kingdom can easily end this unhappy constitutional relationship without the need for referenda. A kind of Czech-Slovak Velvet divorce would probably be the best bet. I think there is growing demand for that in England as much as in Scotland and Wales. It really is time people woke up and began to see that the United Kingdom - as we know it - is effectively over.
I must, must disagree Jeff. I've read over the post a couple of times, and ingested all the comments, and would be in agreement with everything Wardog's had to stay.
I can actually see the front page of the papers in my mind now "SNP back down on independence". It would be electoral suicide - their own members would be in apoplexy, something like that would HAVE to go to the wider membership, otherwise Salmond's leadership of the party, in my view, would be over. It would also send a fairly healthy message of "we've no principles at all, don't worry!" to the floating voters, right before a General Election.
I know it's clichéd, but it would be the uttermost definition of electoral suicide.
Jeff
Don't lose your head buddy. Labour's 'new' strategy as used in GNE is nothing more than a rehash of their perennial approach to Scotland - to piss on our shoes and tell us it's raining.
Sooner or later, hope will beat fear, education will beat ignorance and truth will permeate the media. At that point, we will prevail.
Freedom.
CC
Jeff
An excellent debate you've sparked here.
I have come to it late today as have been out with the family watching a film about the world ending in 2012.
The time is always now.
Let's bring forward the Bill.
It gets voted down.
SNP win again in 2011.
Bring forward another Bill.
It gets passed.
A straight Yes/No on independence.
Scotland votes "Yes"
Job done.
If for no other reason let's get the Referendum Bill out before Arthur's seat becomes an active volcano again!
Jeff,
I disagre with your position. To gain we need to invest and £12M or the lesser true cost is a small amount of money to pay to have OUR say.
Last week, talking to an English pal he asked me what does Scotland have to gain through Independence? I replied the ability to make our own choices and not that of Westmidden, the main point I stated was that we can raise our own finance/loans/capital - call it what you will to directly invest in Scotland's future.
That alone floored him....Jeff we need to be brave and expect every dirty underhand trick in the book to be played against us and for starters the EBC need to be unbiased.
Saor Alba
Crazy Daisy
One of the most bizarre posts I have ever read.
The whole raison d'etre of the SNP is to achieve Scottish independence.
If they were to drop that under any circumstances, they would be, rightly, perceived as charlatans who were seeking power for it's own sake, rather than seeking power in order to deliver independence.
Jeff has sparked off an interesting debate, and the biggests howls come form....dyed in the wool SNP activists. That referendum was your pressie for working so hard to improve your party's performance in Holyrood back in 2007.
Jeff has called it right, this is not the time for a referendum. And lets face it, its was always going to be a symbolic gesture at this point in Scotland's political history. I disagree with those that think that the SNP will take a political hit for not pursuing it, I think the opposite has happened, you are suffering because you carried on with making this the centerpiece of your Holyrood buisness when you had already lost ground on LIT and the Megrahi issue. The referendum should have been been binned, and the Scottish economy put front and centre. That would have gone a long way to reassuring people.
The big claims of a hung Parliament hung by a Scottish rope also focused the minds of those that have voted SNP but will not support a referendum. That blew another hole in the wall for the SNP too. Silly.
You are proposing political suicide and totally needlessly.
Some of your points:
(1) the SNP clearly doesn't have the votes to pass the Bill,
Good actually. But, as with al-Megrahi (where the SNP clearly didn't have the votes) the SNP will be seen as having the balls to stand up for what it believes. Sometimes when you lose, you WIN.
(2) if they did somehow pass the Bill Swinney hasn't budgeted for it so would need to find as much as £12m to pay for it,
Well, they won't and you know they won't but if they did it would probably have to be scheduled later. They'd have still won.
(3) whatever happens, the SNP will quite possibly be seen to have wasted a lot of time and money at the expense of frontline services/GARL/Comm Games, you name it.
How are they seen as cutting frontline servies and the Comm Games when they're not?
GARL is done. They've taken the flack for it. And it isn't why they lost in GNE.
You're still just smarting over GNE which you seem to have taken really too much to heart. Political parties LOSE sometimes, all of them. And the SNP will lose races to Labour.
That does NOT mean allowing themselves to look like they don't even have the guts to up stand of for their very raison d'etre.
I'm normally uttermostly respectable on here, but Fitalass -wtf planet are you on!?
First of all yes, it is a decent debate, and I look forward to perhaps even hearing more of it at some future National Conferences/Councils/Assemblies, for interestingly enough we're a democratic party, with real debate happening at our conferences, with members having the real power.
Secondly, of course the people with the biggest problem with the suggestion of dropping the referendum are the dyed-in-the-wool activists, it's our reason d'etre.. Are you suggesting that it's a bad thing that we've got principles an an ideology? I realise that the other tripartite of major parties in Scotland abandoned their ideologies some time ago, but I for one will be sickened if the SNP ever take the independence issue off the front burner.
If you honestly think that the Scottish Press would take the view of "Oh look, Alex's grown up and gotten over this whole independence thing, let's welcome him to our bosom" instead of "OMGWTFBBQ - Nats don't want Independence!!!1!eleven!11!" then I apologise, because I can't take anything you say seriously. I don't know if you're just a troll, or naïve, or just don't understand politics, but either way I don't think anyone else in the world would agree with you.
Jeanne,
1 The diff between the Megrahi decision and this referendum is that, with the former, being in the minority doesn't matter as you still get to make the decision.
(2) (3) By not including the cost of the referendum in the budget Swinney has opened the door wide open for the 2010 push to be jeered as nothing more than a charade which you yourself admit it is.
If that charge gains traction with the public then the SNP could be in trouble and the option of 2012 might not even be open.
Ps I don't really give two hoots about Glasgow NE. He had worse policies but Bain was a better candidate.
If other parties agree to have a referendum in 2012 then yes I would be quite happy to drop the referendum in 2010. But what is their motivation to agree to a referendum in 2012 if we show ourselves willing to drop it first? I understand what you are saying but I think you have the dynamics wrong. I think tactically dropping the referendum would be the wrong move - being flexible about it is a different matter and I am all for that.
Jeff,
I can see where you are coming from.
The question at the heart of this is what tactics should be employed to deliver Independence?
The tactical mistake the SNP has made is not arguing a positive case for Independence since the 2007 election. (some would argue much longer)
This is what needs to be addressed, not dropping the Referendum bill.
If it's the wrong time for a referendum let the Unionists vote it down. If it's the right time to put the issue to bed let them demonstrate some guts and support the bill.
The problem they have is that they really don't have a clue how the land lies in the minds of the electorate. The SNP know that even in diehard Labour areas there is substantial support for Independence. You have to remember the SNP asks this question any time it speaks to a voter - I have seen areas where over 50% of Labour supporters are in favour of Independence - the SNP's belief that it can win a Referendum is not based on woolly numbers it is based on hard evidence which has been painstakingly collated for many years.
To address your two other points...
I'm sure if you look closely enough at the draft budget there will be a pot from where £12m can easily be drawn without affecting services. You should know that most departmental budgets are never fully spent anyway.
Ditching GARL may be a vote loser with some (but not many) in and around Glasgow but I'll bet it's a big vote winner everywhere else in the country.
Observer,
A bit of bizarre never hurt anyone I suppose ;)
Of course it would be surprising if the SNP dropped the referendum plan but I disagree that they'd be "perceived as charlatans who were seeking power for it's own sake".
On the contrary, if the Scottish people don't have the stomach for it at the moment then they may be impressed that the party is able to maturely adapt its stance on its main policy based on the circumstances.
There's a risk that, with the next year not looking likely to focus on devolved areas too heavily, the SNP will be seen as a single-issue party and turn people off.
The biggest vote-winner in 2007 was the SNP's stance on PFI. Can we realistically rely on that same support if SFT isn't clearly explained to the public? And how can we get that articulate explanation out there if the narrative is continually focussed on independence when a referendum isn't in the offing?
The biggest risk to the SNP isn't not getting a referendum, it's not winning a second term. And I fear the party's becoming slightly blinded in its pursuit of a plebiscite and slightly complacent.
"I'm normally uttermostly respectable on here, but Fitalass -wtf planet are you on!?"
I think I am on planet political reality along side Jeff and most of the electorate.
Jeff, you say "The biggest risk to the SNP isn't not getting a referendum, it's not winning a second term. And I fear the party's becoming slightly blinded in its pursuit of a plebiscite and slightly complacent."
I think the bigger risk is that winning a second term becomes an overiding calculation......
If for example. post next Holyrood elections, a deal were on offer which would see an SNP free holyrood administration, but one that would guarantee an independence referendum in return for SNP support, how would the leadership jump? Not an academic question I think, indeed i think a pertinant one, fundamentally related to the purpose of the SNP.
Can I add, given the scale of the block grant cuts likely post 2011, im not sure being in government under the devolved set up is where the SNP should want to be.
But is this even a consideration?
Since you don't actually support independence. No doubt you would say that.
Post a Comment