The Scottish Government

Alex from Largs (1468) says "The SNP got 32% of the vote, and is unlikely to get much more in any referendum".

BIG mistake, Alex.

The SNP will not be standing any cadidates in a referendum. The whole point of a referendum is that it is a vote on a single issue, NOT a vote for a poltical party, NOT a vote for any politician. Therefore you cannot translate party political support into referendum results. It is entirely possible that some SNP voters may have voted that way because they want Alex Salmond as First minister, but they don't want independence. On the other hand, there is some evidence that perhaps around thirty five percent of Labour voters back independence, although the party they support does not. The alleged figure for independence support amongst Liberal Democrat voters is thirty percent, while for Conservative voters it is twenty percent. Therefore it is entirely possible that a referendum would give a VERY different result from any party political election. But there is really only one way to establish true levels of support. REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO.

PS to livilion...

If this is a real conversation why has there been only one post between your post at 11.54 on Wednesday and now (12.30 Thursday)?

Not exactly quickfire repartee, is it?

Livilion, my original question, which you seem to have forgotten, was: how can this blog be a "national conversation" when, in two full weeks, only a few hundred actual adult Scots have bothered to post anything, and 90% of those are nationalists doing multiple postings?

It's not a conversation of any description. If you think it is, could you give your reasoning?

As for your latest set of questions to me.

You asked "... why has it (the UK) benefited you more than having your own dedicated administration looking after purely Scottish issues would?"

This is akin to asking "why is really good meal, full of all the nourishment and taste that you need, sitting front of you on your own table in your own kitchen, of more benefit than the promise of a totally undefined, but maybe slap up dinner at a yet-to-be-built-ten-michelin-star facility which may or may not be properly funded and delivered in a yet-to-be-defined timeframe. You might call that independence. I would call it buying a pig in a poke.

You then said .. "The people had a say in May and only 32% voted for the status quo, everyone else voted for more powers to Holyrood."

32% voted for parties that support independence, 68% voted for parties that do not support independence. Going by recent opinion polls that would be the approximate result of any referendum on independence also.

There will not be a referendum, not because someone is frustrating the SNP from delivering it, but because Alex Salmond knows these numbers as well as I do, and he will not gamble on a referendum, no matter what he tells his activists. He's no' that daft.

You asked "The question now is not if Holyrood should have more powers, but how much?"

That discussion will take place. No problem and no referendum.

"If Dr John Reid as a cabinet minister could not save Monklands A&E, what chance do the rest of us have with anything?"

Two things. Nobody or no organisation can achieve all they want.

The decision to keep Monklands open may or may not have been the right decision on clinical grounds... but there is no doubt that keeping Ayr A&E open is the wrong decision on clinical grounds...it was, disgracefully, taken on political grounds..

"..Bringing government closer to the folk it is governing almost by definition makes it more responsive and accountable..."

Home Rule for Orkney, is it?

Less flippantly. All systems of government are flawed. The one we have works reasonably well. Nationalists have no idea how independence would work, and they have produced no evidence that it will be any better than what we have.

So the original question: how can this be termed "national conversation" if virtually nobody is taking part?

1466. Concerned Kingdom Lass - Glasgow

Hi, the age comments were only in relation to a couple of people using talk of grandparents being sold as child labourers and such-like. I was basically pointing out that it’s necessary to look at things in a more current context, as many things have changed in the past eighty to hundred years.

I’m not saying that there is no poverty – I just believe that there is not as much of it in council estates in general as everyone assumes. The comment about high-street designer clothes was more to make the point that we cannot assume (as many people seem to do) that living on a council estate automatically denotes poverty.

Going right back to the beginning of this discussion strand, it evolved from my point that it is impossible to address these social problems without money, and that it would be risking further problems to claim independence without first ensuring that the dividends everyone claims would be forthcoming.

The arguments about worsening mortality rates are not things I disagree with – if you look back at my previous posts (can’t remember where, sorry) you’ll notice that this is actually where some of my reservations are founded.

It should be noted, by the way, that my role in the council is supporting the departments which deal with modernisation and maintenance of accommodation – I come into contact with the council tenants when they come in to meet with staff.

And, actually, I know quite a few people who could easily afford to live in better areas, but CHOOSE to remain in council accommodation, and yes, even in the roughest areas, because they can go out more and spend more on something other than rent. They may make sure you NEED a council flat to get one, but they don’t keep tabs on it.

Just as a matter of interest – this is not part of any opinion, just something to think about – how many people know of something similar: I know a couple living in council accommodation. She has an unoccupied house of her own in the highlands. He has a well paid job. His salary alone is more than most people on the waiting list. They have a big two bedroom flat. The amount we pay in rent on our (tiny) one bedroom, on a road with a methadone clinic at the end, would pay their rent twice over. Should there be a more refined priority system to ensure that the people who need this accommodation most should get it? Just a thought…..

1468. Alex - Largs
Tuesday, September 4, 2007 23:14

I think the point is that if you have a grown up, serious contributon to make then do so but spare us from the patronising sermon on what you imagine everyone else thinks, and you'll be spared the patronising responses in return.

Neither you or I are gifted with the ability to read others' thoughts.

So you are in favour of retaining the union?
Fine, why has it benefited you more than having your own dedicated administration looking after purely Scottish issues would?

You are entitled to your opinion but if you would change mine you need to do better than tell me that you know better than I do.

eg The people had a say in May and only 32% voted for the status quo, everyone else voted for more powers to Holyrood.

The question now is not if Holyrood should have more powers, but how much?

As for your councillor, MSP, MEP, and MP:
If Dr John Reid as a cabinet minister could not save Monklands A&E, what chance do the rest of us have with anything?

The last time I asked an MP (Adam Ingram) for help, he was as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

My local councillor has been much more approachable and effective.

Do you detect the start of a pattern there?
Bringing government closer to the folk it is governing almost by definition makes it more responsive and accountable.

At the moment I live in Finland with my Finnish wife.We do intend to return to Scotland in order to campaign for independence.That is a state enjoyed by my wifes country,which she regards as normal.Interesting that her country has the same population as Scotland but better health care,better public transport,free education,lower infant mortality than Scotland etc.The difference is that unlike the regional parliament in Edinburgh,the fully independent parliament in Helsinki can spend the Finnish income,on priorities set by their population.

The Finns are also full members of the EU and generously assist developing countries.They are very international and unlike unionists at home do not see independence as seperating from anyone.The world and Europe is changing.Scotland needs to adapt to this change by gaining independence and becoming a full member of the EU.We also need to look forward and modify our relationship with the other nations within the British Isles.It would be something like the collaboration among the Scandanavian countries.More lie an association of equal partners than a region with limited powers within a unitary state.Nationalists used to be accussed of being backward looking.These days it is those who fail to see the potential within the new Europe who are backward looking.The modern SNP appears to Finns who follow what is going on,to be international and outward looking by seeking to engage with the rest of the world.

Of course if the current narrow thinking among the unionist politicians prevents us moving rapidly to independence,let us take more powers and continue to explain why even extended powers is insufficient to meet the aspiations of the Scottish population.Constitutional change,health care,transport,education etc go together.The delivery of the so called "bread and butter" issues is directly correlated with the degree of independence that a perliament has.Any Finn can tell you that.

I think 300 years of Domination and Subjugation by Westminster shows that Scotland will Never influence Westminster Until it breaks away .
Taking the oil with it. Scotlands Oil !!.

Its the only way Scotland will influence London. We have something they want, which is why all the propaganda telling us that we are too stupid to run our own country. Its all about oil now , before it was keeping Labour in Power for 50 years. . What next. what do they want next

We are truly living in exciting times! Scotland can and will be an independant nation. Talk of instability, banana republic (ps Muriel are you still here?)and generally trying to frighten folk seems to be at last seen for what it is. Recent polls are very promising, we are headed in the right direction!

george alexander –
Alex …..I'm not at all sure how you can extrapolate the number of posters thus far and say that it demonstrates "no interest" in Scotlands constitutional future…”

Because if there was any real interest many more would have posted… it’s that simple…as it is all we have is nationalists backing each other up with multiple posts and a few wonks like me making the sensible case for the union and getting completely ignored.

“People can be interested and indeed discuss the subject without having to post a comment to this board…”

If you and I are having a discussion and 1000 other people are in the room but not joining in, although they have been invited to do so by the FM, in what sense are they taking part in the conversation…? And if they cannot even be bothered to come in to the room at all…?

Fewer than 1000 Scots have contributed to the conversation .. more than 1 million could do so by logging, but they have not bothered… To call this blog a national conversation is non-sense.

“I am sure that there are statisticians who can extrapolate the level of national interest based on the volume of comments here….”

Indeed there may be. And they will see that a tiny percentage can be bothered to participate…

livilion –

“Have you any figures Alex for how many have been just reading the blog rather than posting on it?”

See above. Have YOU any figures for how many have been just reading the blog rather than posting on it?

“Perhaps the novelty of a government actually canvassing your opinion and printing it for review by your peers is a bit disconcerting….”

Not at all, even if it were true. I have a councillor, and MSP and an MP and I can write to anyone in government directly if I want a conversation with them. I do not need any great leader to offer me an opportunity I already have anyway…

The true purpose of the “conversation” is to make it look to its activists as if the SNP is doing something and might even be serious about having a referendum. The people had their say in May. The SNP got 32% of the vote, and is unlikely to get much more in any referendum. Which is why Scots are less than interested in this blog, and why Alex Salmond does not want a referendum, and why there will not be a referendum.

“I can imagine how all this may be confusing and a little scary, but give it time and I'm sure they'll find that it's alright really.”

Patronising. If you want an adult conversation, please don’t patronise those who hold different opinions.

“For some such as those from outwith our shores this forum may be the only way to have their hopes, aspirations or reservations for Scotland known and shared with their fellows.”

Why should foreigners have the right to influence the UK constitution? Would you have the temerity to demand the right to join in a “conversation” on the Irish or South African constitution.

I'm not a member or a supporter of any political party, I never have been, but I have been campaigning for a referendum on independence for Scotland for the best part of three years now, and I took part in forming two non-party-political groups concerned with this, the first called "Independence First" (to emphasise that a referendum on independence should take precedence over any _other_ referendum, for instance, on European matters), and the second called "Determination" (as in self-determination, and also to emphasise that we were not going to give up on our campaign).

Stevie from Dundee (1456) says he believes "Scotland's interests are best served within the Union. But by not calling Salmond's bluff is to play into his hands". WELCOME to the campaign for a referendum on independence, Stevie!

"this is one vote he knows he can't win" - you could be right, Stevie, that Alex Salmond doubts whether there would be a majority for independence at present. He probably thinks it would be a very close run thing. Alex is supposed to be a bit of a gambling man, but he seems a bit on the cautious side to me. Me, on the other hand, I think there WOULD be a decisive majority for independence, and I'm prepared to bet on that. But whether you are right, Stevie, or whether Alex Salmond is right, or whether I am right, there is really only one way to find out. Not through opinion polls. Not through party political elections. No, the only way to settle whether the Scottish people will vote for independence is to go ahead and have a referendum. You say you want to call Alex Salmond's bluff. So, join with me and my colleagues in demanding REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO?

Like I said, Stevie. your support for the campaign for a referendum on independence is most welcome. When we succeed in getting a referendum (and we will, and the sooner the better) THEN you can campaign for a vote for the Union, and I will campaign for a vote for independence, and we will both accept the outcome, whatever it happens to be, won't we?