![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A referendum gives the public a chance to vote in a straightforward way for a single issue, without it getting clouded by other issues. In representative democracy, you might want to vote for party A because of their policy on issue X, but you might disagree with their policy towards issue Y. Or you might like party A, but know that they're never going to get in, and vote for party B instead (in order to keep the Tories party C out). It all gets very complex.
With a referendum on Scottish independence, the people of Scotland would be given a chance to make our choice in a simple, fair manner, unclouded by other political considerations. But the Lib Dems don't want to give us that choice.
No, they say. The only way we're going to get a referendum is if over 50% of voters vote for the SNP.
I am sorely tempted to do so.
With a referendum on Scottish independence, the people of Scotland would be given a chance to make our choice in a simple, fair manner, unclouded by other political considerations. But the Lib Dems don't want to give us that choice.
No, they say. The only way we're going to get a referendum is if over 50% of voters vote for the SNP.
I am sorely tempted to do so.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
I am one of the the 90% idiot majority
From:
no subject
That's pretty much the attitude that dark age kings used — and modern dictators still use — to justify their regimes.
Representative democracy worked because people rose to the challenge; became knowledgeable about that which they were previously ignorant. And the BNP, it must be pointed out, are not in power. So what's so different about direct democracy that it will suddenly mean the end of society as we know it?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I believe Rik may be assuming a false persona in order to argue a point counter to the literal meaning of his words.
</data>
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Yes, but this is a rather significant issue, and so I would reckon that the expense would be worth it.
> The wording of the question [and other details] make a significant difference to the response
The Lib Dems were in a position to have an important say in the shaping of the details of the referendum. They could have said "Yes, if...", and then made a whole list of conditions which would shape the referendum in a way less favourable to the SNP.
> And single-issue political campaigns are nearly always pernicious
I don't follow.
At the heart of it, the question is: if a majority of Scots want independence, why shouldn't they get it?
From:
no subject
Of course they should. That doesn't mean the SNP should be allowed to pretend 35% = 51%. If pro-referendum parties can't get a bill through the assembly, then there will be no referendum. It's not that onerous a threshold, and the parties are making their positions clear in advance...
From:
no subject
Because representative democracy isn't perfect, often the opinions of politicians differ from those of the people who they are supposed to be representing. I believe that Greenpeace is running a campaign citing this phenomenon at the moment, about Trident. (Not the chewing gum).
So I say again. If a majority of Scots want independence, why shouldn't they get it?
From:
no subject
I asserted that there has to be a threshold before holding a referendum, which I think is clear - otherwise we'd be voting every damn day of the week - and I also said that electing 50%+1 of MSPs who support a referendum is a good threshold to have. I said nothing about independence except that if 51% of Scots want it, they should get it. I realise very well that representative democracy isn't perfect.
I note that in 1999 the plurarilty of MSPS were against proportional representation for local elections, but the Lib Dems negotiated for and won that issue as the price of entering a coalition. That seems to me to be a more significant constitutional issue. What's the difference? If the Lib Dems sincerely think that a referendum would be a bad idea and also that independence would be a bad idea, and they say so in public and are elected on that basis, why should they not negotiate to enter a coalition on that basis?
If you think that a plurality of MSPs supporting a referendum is a good enough threshold, fair enough. But the SNP is centred around the proposition of independence and there is PR for the election of MSPs, so I really do think it's fair that if there's no majority in Pa rliament for a referendum then there will not be a referendum.
Incidentally I would like to apologise for saying assembly rather than parliament earlier - absence of mind. I suppose I could pretend that in making a purely procedural point I deliberately used a description that applied to any collection of representatives, but no.
From:
no subject
Your 35% versus 51% thing. The SNP are not "pretending", as you put it, that 51% of MSPs want independence. They are claiming that 51% of people want independence, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Had the Lib Dems agreed to a referendum, they could have formed a coalition government with the SNP, allowing them a far more powerful position. As it is, they've effectively sidelined themselves, having now ruled out coalitions with both main contenders.
Thresholds I think don't really come into it in this instance. Normally, no, a refendum should not automatically be given based on a plurality. But in this case, the SNP made an offer, and I think it was a reasonable offer. Ask the people what they want, and act on that. What are the Lib Dems saying by turning that down? That they don't trust the very people they are supposed to be representing? That they care more about their image in England than in Scotland?
And it's worth noting that a referendum is not guaranteed to favour the SNP's cause. I've already mentioned Australia, whose referendum on republicanism returned a "no", setting the republican cause back years.
From:
no subject
It does not seem useful or sensible to me that the more important the issue, the lower the threshold should be for getting to a referendum. All referenda are "asking the people what they want". Like I said, the SNP is organised around the core demand of independence, so of course they're going to try to negotiate to get to a referendum. Doesn't mean the lib dems are obliged to do anything to help them, particularly ask lib dems MSPs to vote against their platform and quite possibly their conscience.
If you want a referendum and that outweighs every other issue, vote *for* a party for independence. If not, not. But please don't vote *against* the lib dems for having a consistent policy of opposing independence and referendum both - and sticking to that policy in the face of the enormous temptation of power...
From:
no subject
Politicians have a right and responsibility to act on their conscience, yes. But voting against a referendum seems to me more an insistence on power for themselves, not the people who they are representing. (Which to a large extent means Lib Dem voters — who, the SNP have pointed out, are 88% in favour of a referendum.)
More generally, I don't think thresholds of numbers of politicians are that important. More important are the less quantifiable ones of importance to the country and strength of public opinion. It's still a call for politicians to make, of course; it can't be enshrined in any sort of law. But part of a politician's conscience must be to occasionally bow to public opinion, even when it goes against thier own.
From:
no subject
Bugger that. I want elected representatives to stick to the principles and platform on which they were elected. If 51% of the populace can't elect 50%+1 of MSPs who support a referendum (I note, again, that a form of PR applies to election for the scottish parliament) then that's just too bad - it doesn't impose any kind of duty on the MSPs whose manifesto was against a referendum, because their duty is to do their best as they see it and to fulfil the principles on which they were elected as best they can. So yes, the SNP are confusing the two, the more fools they.
From:
no subject
Look, you seem to be saying that a politician should doggedly stick to something despite the fact that the majority of the populace disagree, and despite the fact that a majority of their voters disagree.
They're entitled to do whatever they wish, of course. It's just that they're likely to lose quite a few of their voters if they do so — in this case, including myself.
I don't want to vote for the SNP. I certainly don't want to vote for the SSP or the Greens. Errr... what's left? Solidarity: *chuckle*. The Scottish Independence Party: the whuh? The Free Scotland Party: double whuh? The Scottish Jacobite Party: teh LOLz!
Where was I? Yes, I don't want to vote for the SNP. But the Lib Dems are leaving me little choice.
From:
no subject
gives a topical illustration of the influence of wording.
From:
no subject
I would like to see a referendum introduced by a coalition of pro- and anti-independence parties, since that would reduce bias towards one side or the other.
From:
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Filibusters_in_the_UK_Parliament
I do, so long as the rules of procedure can themselves eventually be changed. And I would in fact support a requirement for a supermajority on everything except money bills in the UK parliament, now I come to think of it.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
"At midnight he was on to the higher cost of living for people who live on farms. At 1 am he was tackling the shortcomings of a particular tariff reduction scheme. By 2 am he was vigorously assailing the suggestion that British Telecom should not have the maintenance contract for telephone equipment. Just before 3 am the committee took a break, but Mr Golding was steaming ahead on the subject of comparative national and international price structures. Half an hour later they were back, and Mr Golding was eloquent on the topic of rural areas: would they suffer because people living there made fewer phone calls? At 5 am he considered the special situation in wales. A quarter of an hour later he rounded the speech off with some thoughts on other, similar amendments, which had also been put forward. At 5.22 he sat down."
Don't you think there's a strange, wild romance to it?
The Bill passed in the next session.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Sounds fair to me. We could have ten referendums a day if we wished, but in fact we restrict them to matters which are not only important enough to warrant a special poll, but have also demonstrated widespread support by being the policy of enough parties to form a government or enough representatives to constitute a majority of the parliament. The LDP are acting straightforwardly in line with their policy and normal British political practice.
The situation is very clear - if you want a referendum on this, vote for a party that supports Scottish independence. If you don't, don't.
From:
no subject
I don't see what weight "normal British political practice" should necessarily have. In fact, I think we're pretty pathetic when it comes to referenda; only one UK-wide referendum has ever been held. Contrast this to countries like Switzerland, which has had hundreds.
> The situation is very clear - if you want a referendum on this, vote for a party that supports Scottish independence. If you don't, don't.
In other words, they're saying: "if you want control over your own destiny, don't vote for us".
So maybe I won't.
From:
no subject
Yeah, and they didn't allow women to vote until 1971. This is the hallmark of perfect democracy how, exactly?
In fact, even that wasn't universal. Appenzell Innerrhoden didn't give the right to women across the board until 1990.
Some countries are keener on them than others. When did the States have their last one?
From:
no subject
(Btw, the figure of 1971 is fairly arbitrary. In fact, it was an lengthy process lasting from 1959 [in the canton of Vaud] until 1990 [Appenzell-Innerrhoden].)
From:
no subject
Now, I'm not saying they don't have their place, but I certainly don't think they're necessary (or even always desirable) for a healthy democracy, and I certainly don't think that there's any reason to hold one on a measure that doesn't (as in this still-hypothetical case) have the support of representatives with a popular majority. We could, otherwise, hold referendums on any matter of even passing interest, to no apparent effect. Some sort of threshold is needed, and that's as good as any.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
A question (and I'm not being flippant):
Would you say you respected Tony Blair for driving this country into war in Iraq despite the fact that a majority of the population were against it?
From:
no subject
If they use the seats they won from the votes of people who oppose independence to assist independence . . . in what way would they be acting in good faith with the electorate?
Either most people don't vote for independence, in which case the LDP acts in keeping with their manifesto, or most people do, in which case it can go through without their support. I honestly cannot see what it is you think is inconsistent or undemocratic here. The LDP have said that if the electorate vote for it they won't get in the way - democracy does not demand that those who oppose a measure support it, but only that when a measure gets majority support it's proponents be allowed to proceed with it.
Would you say you respected Tony Blair for driving this country into war in Iraq despite the fact that a majority of the population were against it?
If he'd been right about WMD then the public might well have supported it, according to 2003 polls. MORI polls at the time found that with WMD findings and a second UN resolution about 75% of the British public would have been in favour. The big problem was that he was so convinced he was right that he supported action before finding proof.
No, I didn't and don't support action without the proof that was fairly obviously not going to arrive.
This is not the same, though, as the situation you're talking about. You're not saying that the LDP should allow independence to go ahead if a majority want it - they've already said that and it's not enough for you.
What you want is that they act to promote the policy, even if the majority of LDP voters oppose it. This is not representative democracy - according to the principles of representative democracy those in favour are represented by the representatives they elect, who are also in favour. Those against, even when in a minority, are also represented by their representatives, who still have a job to do in arguing the case of the minority, whose interests still need to be considered.
From:
no subject
> I honestly cannot see what it is you think is [...] undemocratic here.
I said that it was "kinda against the point of democracy" for a politicians to say "screw you guys, I'm doing what I wanna do, and if you don't like it then too bad, 'cause who else are you going to vote for?"
Just for clarification: my argument was never "OMG it should be outlawed!!!1!". My argument is rather that the Lib Dems are alienating the people that they are supposed to be representing, and are going to lose a fair chunk of voters because of it.
From:
no subject
There are plenty of other people to vote for. They're putting forward their platform and inviting people to vote for them if they agree with it. They're also saying that they'll be reluctant to reverse any of their policy elements after the election, which seems fair - after all, if they turn round and do exactly the opposite of what they said, they'll look a bit cynical.
I would have thought it would be more undemocratic to accept people's votes and then forget exactly what it was you told your supporters you were going to do, but maybe I'm just strange.
My argument is rather that the Lib Dems are alienating the people that they are supposed to be representing, and are going to lose a fair chunk of voters because of it.
By having a policy and planning on sticking to it? The Scottish electorate have never voted for independence - presumably the SNP should therefore give up on the idea? After all, if more people consistently vote against it than for, it must be a major vote-loser.
From:
no subject
Argh! For the last time, upcoming election.
> The Scottish electorate have never voted for independence - presumably the SNP should therefore give up on the idea?
Obviously every party has to have a platform from which to campaign, or there wouldn't be any parties in the first place. But I have a hard time believing that the Lib Dems' platform neccessitates the continuation of the union against the wishes of the masses. That's the sort of thing I expect from the Tories.
From:
no subject
Yes, I know. That's not a time-bound statement. The accepting can take place in the future, as can the telling - the use of were implies that the telling takes place before the forgetting, but both can be in the future.
But I have a hard time believing that the Lib Dems' platform neccessitates the continuation of the union against the wishes of the masses. That's the sort of thing I expect from the Tories
But they haven't said that. They've said that if there's a majority vote for independence then they'll abide by it. I don't see where your problem lies.
To turn your previous question slightly, if WMD had been found in Iraq and the second UN resolution had been passed, and 75% of the British public had indeed decided to support the war, would all of the war's opponents in parliament have to support the invasion, or would it be OK for them to keep disagreeing?
From:
no subject
Then what's the problem? If somebody promises to hold a referendum and then gives one, there's no broken promises. If they promise to not hold a referendum and then does not give one; also no problem.
> But they haven't said that. They've said that if there's a majority vote for independence then they'll abide by it. I don't see where your problem lies.
The problem is that they've said "if there's a majority vote for independence, we'll abide by it", followed by "we're not going to allow any vote to take place". That's the political equivalent of "if you want some cake, just ask me", followed by the sticking of fingers in ears.
> if WMD had been found in Iraq [...] would it be OK for them to keep disagreeing?
Yes, but I wouldn't neccessarily consider it to be the only honourable thing to do. If the majority of the populace — and particularly if a majority of Lib Dem voters — were to start supporting the war, why shouldn't the Lib Dem politicians do likewise?
From:
no subject
That's what I'm asking you. I'm not the one who has a problem with the LDP policy - it seems perfectly reasonable and consistent to me. As is the SNP/Green/SSP one, of course
The problem is that they've said "if there's a majority vote for independence, we'll abide by it", followed by "we're not going to allow any vote to take place".
No, they've said they won't vote in favour of a referendum, because they don't favour independence. If enough people vote for other parties, then there'll be a referendum anyway - the LDP will, however, go on representing people who do not favour moves towards independence, and will act accordingly. There is no onus upon them to support a referendum on a measure they oppose.
Your statement, of course, refers to two different polls - the first being the Scottish parliamentary election, and the second a referendum. They can't say they won't let allow the latter, because it's not their decision. They can and have, however, say that they as a party won't vote for one.
Yes, but I wouldn't neccessarily consider it to be the only honourable thing to do.
So what's wrong with the LDP going on disagreeing with independence?
From:
no subject
They've said that they'll support independence if the people want it. A referendum is the simplest and fairest way to find out if the people do want it. On what grounds, then, are they blocking that referendum?
From:
no subject
If we're going to have referendums on issues on that sort of trigger, then we're going to have a hell of a lot of referendums. If not, then why are we saying that this one issue is different?
On what grounds, then, are they blocking that referendum?
I really don't understand why you think they're going to be blocking anything. If the Scottish people vote for parties supporting independence, then there'll be a referendum whatever the LDP do. The fact that they aren't personally going to vote for it (in line with the policies they stood on) isn't blocking anything.
If the public want independence, then the public has to elect politicians who support it and push it through - it's the public's job. People who oppose it are under no obligation to help out. Tony Benn once said that politicians can be divided into signposts and weather-vanes. Personally, I would like to think that if I vote for, and help elect, an MSP who supports certain policies, then they'll generally pursue those policies rather than changing their mind whenever they think it appropriate.